Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    Ah... is this the "shot heard 'round the Credit Union"?
    

re: .0

Would it be possible for you to post the schedule of fees, etc for those of us
who don't have a relationship with DCU?

Thanks,

Bob

    
    Finally!!!  Please watch Note 2 for an updated copy the April minutes. 
    I will also be responding to many of the questions that have been asked
    in here that could not have answered completely until this point.
    

    
    It appears the mailing to the membership has been done in stages.  The
    letters to the relationship members went out last Friday (& Saturday I
    believe).  The letters to the non-relationship members are going out
    tomorrow.  Chairman of the Board Lisa Ross has decided that the minutes
    of the April Board meeting where this was discussed and voted will be
    made available NEXT Wednesday in order to allow members to receive the
    mailing (and first notification of the changes).
    
    I do not agree with the withholding of this information until then
    since this information is now public but I can't do anything about it.
    

    Oh good grief!  That is ridiculous ... just goes to prove that
    non-relationship members are being treated as second-class members.
    This is totally unacceptable.
    
    Also, does this mean that the minutes as posted are incomplete, or
    was this held in executive session or what ???  This shows absolute
    disregard for the members.
    
    How many signatures are required on that petition ???
    
    Stuart

    
    
    If you wish to know may vote concerning this issue, please press <RETURN>.
    
    
    
    
    
    Before I can tell you my vote (and to cover my rearend), please prove
    to me you are a relationship member by sending me your account balances.
    If you are a non-relationship member, bring me all your business before
    proceeding.  Please press <RETURN> after sending me the above information.
    
    
    
    
    
    Since this is a credit union where we must all carry our weight,
    you must pay for this Vote Disclosure Service.  Please send $.25 to me
    if you are under 100 lbs., $.50 if you are over 100 but under 200 lbs., 
    and $.75 if over 200lbs.
    
    
    
    
    
    I regret to inform you that the Vote Disclosure Service fees have been
    increased.  Please disregard previous outdated price posting.  
    Please remit an additional $.25 before proceeding.
    
    
    
    
    
    Thank you for using the new DCU...
    
    
    
    
    
    And the answer is.....
    
    
    
    
    
    
    NO.  A thousand times NO.  Unfortunately, only one of them counted.
    
    A more detailed explanation of my position and the reasons for it will
    be forthcoming.
    

    
.4>                                                            ... the minutes
.4>    of the April Board meeting where this was discussed and voted will be
.4>    made available NEXT Wednesday...
    
    Just to clarify, Phil:
    
    Do you mean that we will see a new version of the minutes from the BoD
    Meeting that took place on 27-Apr-1993, the minutes that are currently
    posted in note 2.13 in this conference?
    

    
    RE: .7
    
    Bill, I wouldn't call them a new version.  The sections containing the
    recommendations, discussion, vote and my statement will be unredacted.
    

    
    
    I find it utterly irreprehensible that this information could be
    withheld from the membership for this period of time.  Now I know why
    the minutes were not posted for those months...  If this was "executive
    session" material, I would love to see an explanation as to why.  And
    it better not be "because we know the membership wouldn't agree".
    
    I have a feeling that the President of this board is abusing the "executive
    session" to discuss issues which could cause the membership to get
    out their petitions and "throw out those who don't care about THEIR 
    credit union."
    
    I thought executive session was for personnel and litigous issues? 
    What more goes through?  oopps  Phil can't tell us that, he's not
    allowed to...
    
    
    This all stinks... give some people some power and watch out.
    
    
    Thank goodness there are at least *2* board members who care about the
    membership and aren't using this board as some stepping stone to 
    immortality!
    
    
    John
    

    I think that saying the "publication ban" will be lifted is a better
    description.  To think this needed a publication ban in the first
    place implies that the Chairperson KNEW it was going to be
    controversial from the outset ... so put it in executive session
    and bullied it through.
    
    I know there is at least one board member, who from his limited
    correspondence with me, seems to be of the impression that most
    DCU members are in agreement with introducing fees.  Strange.
    
    I wonder if enough mail messages to the directors might convince
    them to rethink this, or a signed petition asking that this plan
    be eliminated instead of a special meeting petition ... that being
    the last effort.
    
    Stuart
    
    

    (Of course Mail messages would eat up their disk quotas ... or
    if they are like many and print their mail it would be an
    incredible waste of paper!)
    
    Stuart

Ahhh.  I get it.  With the exception of a few of the board members, we're
really just operating with the previous board - only the names have changed.

--Scott

    	Absolutely incredible.  Last time I voted with my hand
    (at the meeting); might be time to vote with my feet...
    
    Dave Eklund
    

    
    RE: voting with feet
    
    At a bank, this is the only recourse one has.  Since this is a
    cooperative credit union, the feet might be used for a different
    purpose.  Respond as OWNERS, not customers.
    

    Dave and others who are thinking of doing voting with their feet ...
    
    I would suggest that it might be wise to send mail to the board members
    and register your complaint.  There are some members of the board who
    seem to sincerely believe that the majority of members *like* this
    relationship banking nonsense and the idea of fees.  Let them know
    how you feel ... and you might suggest the same to other people you
    know if they are DCU members and are opposed to fees.
    
    Remember that voting with your feet will kill the CU ... voting again
    with your hand could save it.
    
    Stuart
    
    ps  the board e-mail addresses are posted elsewhere, but I'll post
    them here for your convenience ... 
    
nm%LEDS::ROSS				! Lisa Demauro-Ross, Chairperson
nm%MTS$::"MSO::Thomas McEachin"		! Tom McEachin, Vice-Chairperson
nm%IAMOK::DAWKINS			! Tanya Dawkins, Treasurer
nm%ASE003::GRANSEWICZ			! Phil Gransewicz, Secretary
nm%MTS$::"MSO::Gail Mann"		! Gail Mann
nm%MTS$::"MSO::Paul Milbury"		! Paul Milbury
!nm%US1RMC::"pkinz@cougar.tandem.com"	! Paul Kinzelman (East Coast)
!nm%US3RMC::"pkinz@cougar.tandem.com"	! Paul Kinzelman (West Coast)
nm%US2RMC::"pkinz@cougar.tandem.com"	! Paul Kinzelman (MKO, GIA)
!nm%VBORMC::"pkinz@cougar.tandem.com"	! Paul Kinzelman (Europe)
    

    I too just received my package telling me that I'm a "Relationship
    Member". To put it mildly I'm incensed by it. I'm waiting until I cool
    down a little before completing my letter to the DCU BOD.
    
    I have a sneaking suspicion that this latest attempt to impose checking
    fees will stir up as much, if not more, anger with the DCU owners than
    the last fee letter. The one of two years ago in black labelled
    "More Choices". We shall see.
    
    Dave

re Note 694.16 by SMAUG::GARROD:

> To put it mildly I'm incensed by it. 

        Me too.

        One little additional thing that I found troubling in this
        letter was a statement that as of January 1 "Regulation D: 
        This federal regulation limits you a maximum of six (6)
        transfers each month from your savings accounts via
        telephone, FAX or Easy Touch Audio Response System."

        Now since this is supposedly due to "federal regulation" I
        would suppose that DCU had no choice in the matter.

        On the other hand, I do about a dozen transfers from savings
        per month by Easy Touch.  If this restriction goes into
        effect, I will be forced to do most of these transactions at
        the tellers, which I am pretty sure will cost the DCU more.

        How does one go about protesting a federal regulation?

        Bob

    My letter was waiting at home last night.

    The changes seem to fall into two categories:

    o  new fees that will be waived if you have a "relationship"; checking,
       saving, etc

    o  existing fees that will now be waived if you have a "relationship";
       both VISA cards

    A loose interpretation of this fee structure could be that the
    out-crowd will pay fees on their savings in part to subsidize free-free
    VISA cards for the in-crowd.
    
    Now *there's* a relationship to be proud of!

Ok, ladies and gentlemen - subsidized and unsubsidized members - folks
with money and folks without - everyone take out your pocket calculator
(geeks, reach for your sliderules) and perform the following 
calculation:

	$0.47 * number_of_members

The result of this calculation will give you some idea of how much DCU
spent on postage alone to tell us all about the new fee structure.  Of course
that doesn't include the cost of deciding to do this, the cost of having
all the materials drafted, the cost of printing everything up, and the
cost of having the mailing prepared.

Let me get this straight:  First, the owners of this credit union vote
to (a) waive fees and (b) call for new elections so that we may elect
a new board.  Next, the new Board, which includes a 4-3 MAJORITY WHO
PLEDGED IN WRITING to "hold the line on fees" leads the credit union into
it's most successfull year financially ever.  Then, the Board and DCU
management institute "gain sharing" which returns net income to DCU
employees.  And then, finally, in some sort of strange claim of "[ensuring]
that all members are treated fairly" institues a system of fees, thinly
disguised as "relationship banking."

First, the notion of gain-sharing, while well and good on the face of
it, flies directly in the face of what DCU has held out to the membership
as some sort of strategic battle plan.  Now, the owners of the credit union,
who have not seen a bonus dividend in years, and who have just recently
been the victims of a corrupt management (it's the Mangone thing) are being
asked, no told, that despite the fact we've handed DCU it's most profitable
year ever we must now pony up fees of all sorts in order to be "fair" to
each other.  

Didn't those individuals who currently WORK FOR US as members of the
Board of Directors LISTEN when we went through this last time.  Perhaps
they need to be told in short, easy to comprehend sentences:

		NO FEES.  NO "RELATIONSHIPS."


Whether it's "You can have any color you want as long as it's black" or
it's "Dear Valued Member" a fee structure is a fee structure is a fee
structure.  If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and flies like
a duck, it's gotta be a duck.

This is utter nonsense, and simply must be stopped once and for all.

./chris

From:	NACAD::SHERMAN      "Steve NACAD::Sherman DTN 226-6992 LKG2-A/R5 pole AA2" 15-SEP-1993 09:41:41.78
To:	@DCUBOD
CC:	SHERMAN
Subj:	Memo to DCU BoD

Dear Director,

I'm writing this letter to all directors of the DCU Board.  As you are aware,
I have again decided to volunteer to serve on the Supervisory Board.  You have
my resume and have previously interviewed me.  You have been given my word 
that I am interested in serving out of a sense of duty and desire to "do the
right thing."  My resume indicates that I have long been involved with duties
of this nature.  Also, a majority of you are aware that I campaigned on your
behalf during the DCU elections as well as worked to give you that opportunity
to serve.  I stood and voted with several of you to, in essence, roll back
fees that were proposed by the directors you replaced.  I am very much aware
of the nature of the sacrifices and efforts that you have made on behalf of
DCU shareholders.

I am utterly appalled to find that only *2* of the directors maintained what I
believe to represent the will of shareholders as expressed in the Special 
Meeting held nearly two years ago and supported in the following elections.  
I am shocked to find that the vote involved was hidden in the released meeting 
notes.  This indicates to me a blatant awareness of how shareholders whom you 
represent would feel about your votes.  Further, I am dumbfounded that your 
chairperson, who I campaigned with personally, effectively turned on one 
director who went on record with statements that I feel were representative 
of my desires as a shareholder of the DCU.

By sending this memo to you, I realize that I jeopardize my chances of
serving the shareholders of the DCU by representing them on the Supervisory
Committee.  But, I recognize the importance of being above-board and
forthcoming with my true intentions and positions.  I hope that you will
reconsider your position regarding fees and take a moment to concern yourself
with the desires of those you represent as Director.  There are many like me 
who support the changes of the DCU over the years.  I do not feel alone and am
confident that DCU shareholders will continually concern themselves with their
relationships with  DCU -- unless they feel pushed aside and become lost to 
your competition.  

Thank you very much for your time and attention.

Steve

Was a business plan developed for the new fee structure? Did the DCU 
managenent and BOD estimate how much revenue the fees would generate during 
the next business year? Or how much revenue would be lost due to accounts being
closed? Or how much expense would be saved due to non-relationship accounts 
being closed? 

-stephen

The mailing I got says fees will also be waived if I have a "sold DCU
mortgage".  Dumb question:  What's a "sold" mortgage?  Does that mean
a mortgage DCU has sold to some other institution, or one that has been
paid off?  If the former, does that mean that members with mortgages
which haven't been "sold" yet will have to pay the fees?  I would think
that just having a mortgage with DCU would put you in their good graces.
Is that what they're trying to tell me?

Confused and suspicious,
Carl

    I didn't think that DCU had anything but sold mortgages.

    
    I took a mortgae with DCU, which was immediately sold.
    
    That currently gives me a "relationship".
    
    What happens to that "relationship" when I refinance and pay off the
    mortgage that DCU sold? Since DCU already made its money on the
    deal, does it care? Does a sold mortgage give me a lifetime
    "relationship"?
    
    Curiouser and curiouser!
    

    My letter to the Directors ...
    
    
From:	KAOFS::S_BROOK      "DENVER -- A long way from this place" 15-SEP-1993 11:09:21.36
To:	@DCUBOARD.DIS
CC:	S_BROOK
Subj:	Relationship Banking and Fees

Ladies and Gentlemen,

You have already read my letters regarding some of my concerns about
relationship banking and fees and that management drives the board rather
than the board controlling management.

Now, I see that you have confirmed my worst fears.  You have followed the
request of the DCU president and implemented a fee system which not only
nickels and dimes members, but creates effectively creates different 
membership classes.

You have ignored the wishes of the membership as expressed in the Special
Meeting that resulted in your election.  In that meeting it was clearly
shown that fees were not acceptable.  I was not a DCU member at that time, 
but if I were, I would have concurred with those wishes.

This concept of relationship banking totally violates the spirit of a credit
union.  Yes, there are members who subsidize other members ... but
do not members who borrow subsidize those who save ?  It is not really any
different.  That there are currently a high proportion of members who may
be subsidized by having low balance accounts should imply that DCU is not
meeting their needs and this, surely, should be addressed first.

I therefore request that you reject this plan prior to final implementation,
as you as the board were previously instructed by the membership.

Stuart Brook


    

    Here is my guess from the wording.
    
    If DCU is holding your mortgage that would be a "loan" so you'd be
    covered under the $3,500 loan provision. If sold you wouldn't have a
    loan and be covered under the "sold" mortagage provision. I presume
    they mean "active sold mortage". I also presume that if the money owed
    on your held mortage drops below $3,500 you move from "valued
    relationship member" to "piece of shit, please shove off" status.
    
    Dave

I must not have had a relationship at the time of creating the mailing list
(although I now have $4K in savings), so I haven't heard a word yet.  Would
someone be kind enough to list the proposed relationships?

Elaine

    
    I think the entire board and all high level management in DCU should
    sit down together and watch "It's a Wonderful Life."
    
    
    In black and white.
    

    	OK, I've calmed down now.  Doesn't help.  I simply cannot
    fathom why such fees could even be considered after the membership
    voted CLEARLY and painfully to reject fees.  Was that message not
    clear enough?  Or don't you (BOD) care what the membership wants?
    
    	All the words in the world cannot change that vote.  Learn
    to listen better.
    
    	In case you are still listening, here's my suggestion.  When
    we voted for no checking fees, what we were saying is that the
    "relationship" is simply membership.  ALL checking accounts are
    free.  Will you lose money on some of these?  Sure.  Do we care
    about that?  No.  Pay for it by lower rates on savings, higher
    rates on loans, in short - some other way.  But no fees on
    checking.  Members already have a "relationship" (by the very
    nature of a Credit Union!).  Maybe we believe that the members
    we are subsidizing will be thankful, and stay even when they
    have much more interesting financial statements... Maybe we
    view the CU as more of a family than a business.
    
    	That's what many of us voted.  We (I) still feel that way.
    Note well.  You are REALLY starting to **** *** some of us
    by not remembering or by not caring.  I would suggest that the
    BOD should take a long hard look at their goals.  If customer
    satisfaction is still on the list, you may put me in the
    dissatisfied column (and in case it matters, I am a charter
    member, and do qualify as a relationship member even by the
    new standard).
    
    Dave Eklund
    
    PS I know how to vote, I know how to lobby, I know how to
    debate, and it's very likely I can outlast you.
    
                                                    

RE: Note 694.29 by WLDBIL::KILGORE

>    I think the entire board and all high level management in DCU should
>    sit down together and watch "It's a Wonderful Life."
    
    
>    In black and white.

No, better yet...  Just one color



			BLACK - LIKE THE FORD...

There is one constant between the old BoD and the new...The President of DCU.

Bob

  Yup and maybe we got rid of the wrong people last time???

I'm with you two on that!  I have absolutely no doubt that Chuck is
the force behind this.  My impression from the "meet the President"
meetings, the special meeting, comments from the board minutes and
this current fiasco is a consistent one:  Chuck is a shrewd opportunist
and will do whatever it takes to get what he wants.  I wouldn't trust
him any further than I could throw him.  I had a relatively lengthy
conversation with him after one of the "meet the Prez" meetings (~20
minutes).  He was great at acknowledging my comments and of course he
completely understands the issues.  Too bad he very clearly left me feeling
that my understanding and wishes of a credit union were simply inferior to
his plans.

That is what we have a board of directors for.  To hold Chuck and company
in check and accountable to the membership.  Although Chuck is driving the
relationship banking issue, I hold the board responsible for permitting it
to become reality.  Chuck seems to be doing a good job in many ways and
credit to him where due but the fees issue should never have been allowed
to be an issue at all after the special meeting.  ESPECIALLY given the
fiscal recovery of the CU since then!

Ray

        So...what is the procedure to impeach a president?
        

    re: .35 Phil can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the President
    serves at the pleasure of the Board of Directors.  Should (a
    majority of?) the Board require his resignation, I believe that is the
    end of the story.  
                                                          David

    Re .35
    
    In my view the membership should not be worrying at all about the
    president or the staff of DCU. If you don't like what DCU management is
    doing from a strategic policy point of view there is only one body the
    membership should address and that is the DCU BOD. The DCU BOD
    represents the DCU owners ie us (or is at least meant to). They are in
    direct control of what the president can or can't do. If you like what
    the president is doing thank the BOD. If you don't like what the
    president is doing make your views known to the BOD. The old BOD tried
    to disclaim responsibility for the acts of the the past president. The
    membership quite properly put them to the rights and forced the whole
    lot to resign and submit themselves to a special election.
    
    Remember this checking account fees thing could very easily be
    reversed. All that would have to happen is a BOD meeting where the BOD
    put forward a motion to overrule the president in the implementation of
    checking fees. Voila, no checking fees. Remember the DCU BOD represents
    YOU. They are meant to do what the will of the membership wants. 4 of
    them even stood on a platform of no checking fees. Two of them (Tanya
    Dawkins and Lisa DeMauro Ross)
    conveniently forgot that in April and worse one of them (Lisa DeMauro
    Ross) even authorized that the fact that checking fees had been voted
    for should be explicitly hidden from the membership for a period of
    5 months. Three of the BOD (Gail Mann, Thomas McEachin and Paul
    Milbury) also voted for checking fees. From talking to others I
    understand that they did this believing it was the correct thing for
    the DCU. I can understand and except that (except for the little fact
    that the membership had passed a binding resolution at the 1991 special
    meeting mandating "No checking fees"). Also these three when they ran
    for election made no pronouncements that they were against checking
    fees and could probably argue that they were voting for what they
    thought the membership would want. There were only 2 BOD members (Paul
    Kinzelman and Phil Gransewicz) who voted against checking fees. These
    were two BOD members who explicitly ran on a platform of "no checking
    fees" and it appears voted in line with their election promises.
    
    So bottom line is the BOD is your representative body they are the
    organ to bring the will of the membership down on the President. If it
    can be determined that the will of the membership is "no checking fees"
    (not difficult they voted for no checking fees at the special meeting)
    and the BOD refuses to listen to the membership I predict they'll go
    the same way as the last BOD that thought they were accountable to
    nobody.
    
    Dave

    
Article XIX. General

Section 3. Notwithstanding any other provisions in these
bylaws, any director, committee member, or officer of this
credit union may be removed from office by the affirmative
vote of a majority of the members present at a special
meeting called for the purpose, but only after an
opportunity has been given him to be heard.

Rearranging the name of the organization, it is a Federally sacntioned Union of
members made up of Digital Employees for the purpose of providing Credit.

That means we're all equal and all treated the same.  When our representatives
overseeing our Union (Credit) stop treating the membership that way, it is time
to replace the representatives.

Where's the petition?

BobW

Just for clarification, I am a "relationship member" and my daughter is not.

I compared the letters we both received, and they were EXACTLY the same.  At
least the DCU saved some money by not having different leters for different
members.....

    I think that if the primary member is a relationship member the
    other members who are members by relationship to the primary are
    also relationship members. Family of family is family. :-)

    			Alfred

    re: .42
    
    'Scuse me?  Were you at the "pizza party" or ANY of the other meetings
    of the RC candidates?   Did you read ANY of the joint statements of the 
    RC candidates?  If yes to ANY of this, where is there any evidence to 
    support your assertion that it was "just a pizza party?"  Musta been
    SOME PARTY to have resulted in the election of 4 of the party-goers to 
    the BoD ...  Gee, if THAT'S how things get done, it's time for me to
    party, party, party!  :^)
    
    Steve

    
From:	WLDBIL::KILGORE      "Dysfunctional DCU relationship" 16-SEP-1993
To:	@M:DCU_BOD
CC:	KILGORE
Subj:	Relationship Banking and Fees


Members of the DCU Board of Directors:

I have received a mailing addressed to certain DCU members who have an
alleged "relationship" with the credit union. This mailing includes information
on certain new fees for DCU services, fees that will be waived for
"relationship" members.

I am writing this letter to voice my total and unequivocal rejection of these
fees and conditions, for the following reasons:

  o  They serve to classify a group of DCU owners who are more privileged
     than other owners. I condemn and reject this classification, and I am
     embarrassed to be considered part of it.

  o  In the absence of a comprehensive business plan, they seem to generate
     more revenue for the credit union. This is totally unnecessary in light
     of the fact that DCU has just completed an excellent business year and
     has achieved an appreciable improvement in the capital ratio.

  o  They violate a mandate delivered to the board in a special meeting held
     12-Nov-1991, where a clear majority of the members present at that
     meeting voted to rescind increased and new charges on DCU services.

  o  They contradict a campaign pledge of four of the seven current board
     members, that they would "focus on loaning money to members at good
     rates and try to hold the line on fee increases." No such attempt is
     evident.

I am extremely disappointed in the recent actions of the board in this matter.
Furthermore, I am outraged that the board evidently tried to hide this matter
from the DCU owners for at least five months, by delaying the availability of
minutes for the board meeting of 27-Apr-1993, and then by evidently redacting
relevant minutes of that meeting for reasons other than executive session.

As an owner of the DCU, and as a member at whose pleasure you retain your
board position, I demand that you postpone any and all changes in DCU fees and
conditions until:

  o  all board meeting minutes relevant to these fees and conditions are
     available to all DCU owners, unredacted and with full voting information;

  o  a comprehensive business plan regarding these fees and conditions is
     available to all DCU owners, covering the current expense to DCU of those
     members whose fees would not be waived, the expected revenue to be
     generated by the fees, and how that revenue would be used to improve
     DCU's offerings or financial status, and explaining why these changes
     are necessary in light of DCU's financial success;

  o  an explicit effort is made to determine whether the majority of DCU owners
     have reversed their clearly and repeatedly proclaimed position opposing
     new fees.

Most sincerely yours,

Bill Kilgore
DCU member/owner

    

    
    I think that there is some awful confusion in here about the
    relationship between the RC candidates.  When accused of standing
    as a party, the RC candidates say their only affiliation was attempting
    to put together a common policy statement and organizing a pizza party.
    
    Now when accused of just being a pizza party, someone jumps up and says
    it was more than that.
    
    Obviously, the RC banner was just a loose affiliation with at least
    *some* shared policy (although in practice, it doesn't look like there 
    was much shared policy at all!) and some common campaigning.  Evidently
    it was no more and no less than that.  Once elected they could, and
    most certainly did, go their own directions, right down to abandoning
    the policies they campaigned for.
    
    I think it is far more important to stop thinking of all these
    directors as RC or non-RC and look at them as individuals, and
    measure them on their individual performance.  Even Paul and Phil,
    who are the two most open and forthcoming about their stance and
    communications have decidedly different beliefs about the CU.  
    
    Stuart

    
    Regarding REAL CHOICE candidates. All "REAL CHOICE" candidates
    EXPLICITLY agreed to the attached as a joint statement to be used by
    others for campaigning purposes. Note in particular:
    
>o Improve the financial status of the DCU by focusing on long range
>  solutions instead of short term fixes.  Focus on loaning money to 
>  members at good rates and try to hold the line on fee increases.
    
    
 Dave

    
		 "REAL CHOICES" for the DCU Board of Directors

Soon after March 14th, DCU members will receive      Tanya Dawkins       MLO
ballots to elect a new Board of Directors.  The      Lisa DeMauro-Ross   SHR
names at the right are candidates whom we support    Christopher Gillett GSF
for their qualifications and strong commitment to    Phil Gransewicz     TTB
reforming the questionable practices of the past.    Abhijit Gupta       HLO
They can make the DCU Board both responsive to       Gim Hom             MLO
and representative of the membership.  The Board     Paul Kinzelman      MSO
exists to serve us and answer to us.  Please         Richard Luciano     TTB
take time to vote in this important election.        Alfred Thompson     NIO

The above "REAL CHOICES" candidates, all nominated by petition, are all
committed to the following goals and philosophies:

o Restore membership confidence through more extensive, honest, and open
  communication about what is happening at *our* credit union.  No more
  glossy brochures offering "more choices" that are actually fee increases.

o Return power to the members by reviewing all recent bylaw changes and 
  seeking membership approval for future bylaw changes.  Rescind the bylaw
  change that requires 5,000 signatures to call another special meeting.

o Increase membership feedback into credit union operations and restore
  member involvement in advisory and oversight committees.  Recognize 
  that most members are good credit risks and should be treated that way.

o Improve the financial status of the DCU by focusing on long range
  solutions instead of short term fixes.  Focus on loaning money to 
  members at good rates and try to hold the line on fee increases.
    
o Review the lending and investment practices that led to the current 
  state of the DCU, and report findings to the membership.

o In short, turn the DCU back into the successful credit union it once 
  was.  We need a credit union that is committed to serving its members, 
  not one that is committed to trying to imitate a commercial bank.

The candidates listed above all gained access to the ballot by petition --
we feel that the nomination process this year did not offer real choices 
for reform.  Contrary to DCU Election Guidelines, DCU President Chuck 
Cockburn was a member of the Nominating Committee, which chose just 9 
candidates for 7 open positions -- including two incumbents.  

If you would like to know more about the "REAL CHOICES" candidates, please
contact us or any of the candidates listed above.  Or you can copy files 
from public directory GONAVY::DCU$PUBLIC: or notes file SMAUG::DCU, which
contain candidate position statements and some documents describing what
went wrong at the DCU and why real reform is so very important.

    Also the attached is the personal campaigning statement Lisa DeMauro
    Ross (current DCU BOD chairperson) put on the ENET for ALL people to
    read. I have removed her badge number that she did include. This was
    written BY and FOR Lisa. In particular note the following:
    
>  I will ensure open communication on strategy issues for our
>  institution including policy-setting proposals, modifications to our product
>  offerings and the soundness of your investments with the D.C.U.   I believe
>  I could make great contributions to the D.C.U. by securing a position on the
>  board.
    
    How this gels with Lisa's decision to hide the discussion/vote on
    imposing checkout account fees at the April board meeting I am at a
    loss to understand. If anybody can reconcile that action with the above
    statement please enlighten me.

    Dave

    Lisa Marie DeMauro Ross        BADGE#: xxxxxx
      45 Myrtle Terrace, Winchester, MA 01890              DTN # 237-6595

                                                 
            QUALIFICATIONS:
                    1. FINANCE PROFESSIONAL
                    2. WORK HISTORY:
                      A. BANKING EXPERIENCE
                      B. SUCCESSIVE CAREER ADVANCEMENT
                      C. SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED ABILITY TO ENHANCE
                          COMMUNICATION AND INTEGRATION ACROSS FUNCTIONS
                    3. D.C.U. MEMBER
                    4. COMMUNITY ACTIVIST

            REASONS FOR RUNNING FOR BOARD:
                    1.  RE-GAIN THE CONFIDENCE OF D.C.U. MEMBERSHIP IN THE BOARD
                    2.  RENEW SPIRIT OF COOPERATION BETWEEN BOARD AND MEMBERSHIP
                    3.  ENHANCE COMMUNICATION OF:
                           - PRODUCT OFFERINGS
                           - POLICY SETTING PROPOSALS
                           - THE FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE D.C.U.

    It is critical for the new board to re-gain the confidence of the D.C.U.
    membership.  I propose that as a board member, I can renew the spirit of
    cooperation, and  I will propose ideas to enhance communication to the
    membership.   I will ensure open communication on strategy issues for our
    institution including policy-setting proposals, modifications to our product
    offerings and the soundness of your investments with the D.C.U.   I believe
    I could make great contributions to the D.C.U. by securing a position on the
    board.
    
    I have several years of banking experience that will benefit discussions of
    service offerings as well as the audit of proper banking operations.  My
    resume includes consulting work at Swiss Bank in Zurich, Switzerland, which
    required the evaluation and the subsequent proposal for the restructuring of
    the 'Product Management' Marketing Organization  to meet the new challenges
    in the competitive International Banking Services Market.  Prior to that, I
    held the position of  'Assistant to Vice President' at Key Financial
    Services, Inc. in Waltham (a division of Key Bank Corp.).  My tasks included
    the implementation of audit procedures and banking systems during the
    division's first year of operation as well as the evaluation product line
    diversification via competitive and strategic analysis.
    Since the completion of my M.B.A. in 1987, I have had successive positions
    in  finance and specifically to DEC, in Storage Finance, where I now work as
    a Financial Manager.  I have successfully demonstrated the  ability to work
    as an integrator and ensure communication and teamwork from non-contiguous
    groups.

    Through my outside interests, I am experienced with committee work and
    Robert's Rules.  I am actively involved in community affairs including
    membership in the Northboro Rotary Club Member where I am Secretary-Elect
    for FY1993 and I am also a Finance Committee Member for the Town of
    Winchester (3-YR Term FY91-FY93).

>o Improve the financial status of the DCU by focusing on long range
>  solutions instead of short term fixes.  Focus on loaning money to 
>  members at good rates and try to hold the line on fee increases.
    
    The word TRY does give a loophole.

.51>    The word TRY does give a loophole.

    "Safety valve" might be a more appropriate term, and as I recall,
    that's exactly why "try" is there. No one expected board members to
    commit ritual suicide if there happened to be a sound reason to
    institute or increase fees.

    It's not a loophole because, as far as I'm concerned, the people who
    agreed to that statement don't get to step through the "try" part for
    free. If they tried and failed to hold the line on fee increases, there
    should be some evidence, and I darned well expect to see it.

    A comprehensive business plan that illustrates why the fee increase would
    be considered evidence of trying, as would a recap of a healthy
    discussion of the issues around fee increases, published in a timely
    manner in Bod minutes. Neither seems to be available.

    

  >...try...

After a banner year of profits and the best ratios we have
ever had as a Credit Union, I see no loophole whatsoever.

Maybe someone else can explain why fees are necessary given
the fact that employees are entitled to bonuses because of
this record year...

>>Maybe someone else can explain why fees are necessary given
>>the fact that employees are entitled to bonuses because of
>>this record year...



  How do you expect them to pay bonuses without affecting the bottom line
if they don't charge fees???  You can bet that the guy who proposed the
fees will get the biggest bonus!!!

    Re .-1
    
    I don't think a recall petition is called for, YET. Initially the
    sensible thing to do is to try and influence the board to listen to the
    membership. Only if they point blank refuse should recall petitions
    come into play. Just make sure that you and anybody else who has views
    on how the board should instruct the president to act writes a letter
    to the DCU BOD. The more letters they get the more they may listen.
    
    Dave

    
    What I still can't determine (even as a Director) is what line was
    held, when was it held, when did the line break (yes, I know April) and
    what caused the line to break to motivate one to change teir stance on the
    implementation of fees?  Nothing has changed at DCU financially
    over the last two years except that we are doing much better than we
    were two years ago.
    

    To hell with the board.  I am a relationship member, and am going
    to give DCU a relationship to remember.  I will pull my funds, all
    seven accounts, and go down the street for free services, and nickel
    and dimeing won't be one of them.
    
    
    KMA, DCU
    
    
    bob
    

  .-1 is EXACTLY why we need to do the petition NOW!!!!  DCU is already
starting to lose members because local banks are MUCH easier to deal with
and here they will guarantee no fees for life!

re:  The Real Choices discussion...

At the Real Choices pizza party, it was my firm desire to establish
a slate of candidates and run on a common platform.  I was told, in
very strong terms by most attendees, that RC *was not* a political 
party, and we were not in the business of determining who was more
qualified than others to run for the Board.  It was the overwhelming
concensus of the attendees that we were bound together with a common
set of beliefs and that was sufficient reason to run under a common banner.

I recall the discussions about "holding the line on fees" quite
vividly.  I was pushing for very explicit, strong language to the
extent that we as board members would take action to eliminate fees
on basic services for good.  I recall that Lisa Ross was against this
type of language.  The compromise was to "hold the line on fees."  

Lisa Ross and Tanya Dawkins came into the Real Choices fold only after 
the election nominating committee refused to place them on the ballot.
During the petition drive to call the special meeting we never heard
from them.  Their involvement in RC was to get their petitions signed
and submitted to the credit union.

These of course, are only my recollections and they're a couple years
old.  I'm sure that if I'm wrong, the persons involved will correct
me.

./chris

    
    [Below is the text of the letter DCU sent to "relationship" members.]
    
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    



     September 10, 1993


     Dear Valued Member,

     A year and a half ago, DCU's members elected a new Board of Directors.
     These volunteers, along with the management, developed a strategic
     plan that focuses on exceeding your service expectations while
     ensuring DCU's financial soundness.  Implementation of this plan to
     date has resulted in:

      o  Improved capital ratio to over 6%.  We must continue to make
         improvement in this area, because a strong capital ratio ensures
         the credit union's long-term success.  Remember that in a credit
         union, capital is owned by you, the member.

      o  Excellent rates, terms and services for our loan products,
         resulting in consumer and real estate loans growing at a record
         pace.

      o  Competitive savings rates and a wide range of savings products.

      o  Establishing an Information Center to provide toll-free personal
         service to members across the country from Monday through Friday,
         8:00 am to 8:00 pm (EST).

      o  Enhanced internal controls throughout the credit union.

      o  Improved service in all operational areas as measured annually in
         an independent survey of our membership.

     Our accomplishments can be attributed to members like you who choose
     to borrow and save with the credit union.  DCU thanks you for your
     support.

     An important part of our long-term strategy is to continuously improve
     our ability to provide competitive rates for our borrowers and savers.
     Our plans to accomplish this include:

      o  Encouraging members to establish and maintain a strong
         relationship with DCU.

      o  Implementing a pricing structure that ensures equitable charges
         for services.  Because DCU is a cooperative, we exist for the
         benefit of all members.  We have an obligation to ensure that all
         members are treated fairly and that one group does not subsidize
         another.

     To provide fair treatment to all members, we are restructuring our
     deposit accounts and implementing very low minimum balance
     requirements and service fees.

     As shown in the accompanying matrix [1], these fees are *waived* for
     members like you who maintain relationships or use other DCU services.
     Even if members do not establish a relationship, there are several
     ways they can use the credit union and avoid fees, such as having
     direct deposit or maintaining low minimum balances.

     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     [1]The matrix on the second page shows account types, how interest
        is earned, minimum deposits, service charges, and minimum daily
        balances to waive service charges; the service charges and
        waiving criteria are repeated on the "Schedule of Fees and 
        Service Charges".

    

[NOTE: Below is a partial listing of the "Schedule of Fees and
 Service Charges. Most of the fees listed below are marked with the
 footnote, "Service Fees effective January 1, 1994", with the
 exception of the VISA CREDIT CARD fees, which existed before but
 are now marked "(Waived for relationship member.*)"]

[1]Current Vacation and U-Name-It accounts become Member Described accounts.

[2]Current Christmas Club accounts become Holiday Club accounts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

GENERAL
------------------------------------------------------------
Stop Payment (ACH)                                  $ 1.00
Duplicate/Copy 
    (Deposited check)                               $ 1.00
    (Withdrawal slip)                               $ 1.00
Individual Retirement ACcount
    (One-time administration fee)                   $15.00
Levy/Trustee Summons                                $20.00

MEMBER_DESCRIBED SAVINGS [1]
------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly fee                                         $ 2.00
 (Waived for relationship member*
  or daily balance over $100.)

CHECKING ACCOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------
Monthly Fee                                         $ 4.00
  (Waived for relationship member*; or daily
   checking account balance of $500 or more; or
   Direct Deposit of $500 or more monthly; or age
   18 or younger, age 62 or loder.)
Automatic Transfer from Primary Savings             $ 3.00
  (Limit three per month / Fee
   waived for relationship member.*)
Temporary Checks (for 10 checks)                    $10.00

VISA CREDIT CARD
------------------------------------------------------------
VISA Classic Card Annual Fee  $15.00
  (Waived for relationship member.*)
VISA Gold Card Annual Fee                           $15.00
  (Waived for relationship member.*)

EARLY CLOSING PENALTIES
------------------------------------------------------------
Holiday Club Account [2]                            $ 5.00



*A relationship member has $3,500 in combined
 household deposit account balances or $3,500 in
 combined outstanding loans or a sold DCU
 mortgage.

    

    Did this memo go to a selected group?  Neither my wife or I have
    received this or any other letter, I believe we are both relationship
    members according to the previous reply.  I've been a member/owner since 
    the DCU was formed.  If I ever totally disregarded the wishes of my
    boss/owners like this memo leads me to believe the current BoD is doing
    I'd be out of a job as they should be.

    Joe  

    Hmmm.  I didn't get a "valued member" letter ... yet.  Wonder if I'll
    be getting a "Dear John ..."  ;^)
    
    Steve

    I have a DCU sold mortgage and I got the "valued member" letter.  Maybe
    I'll send the DCU a "Dear John..."
    
    Also Steve

I still haven't found the precise definition of a relationship member.
It didn't seem to be in the mailing.  My wife, daughter, and I all got
"relationship" letters.  My wife and I certainly qualify, but my daughter
is 21, typically has a 3 digit balance, and no other relationship.  Having
relationships be associative is good for me, but I can't otherwise see the
rationale.

	Paul

re:  .66

As I understand it, "relationship" is determined on a household
basis.  The deal is $3,500 in overall savings/checking (that is,
a $3,500 average daily balance), or $3,500 in overall debt to
the credit union, or a sold mortgage originated by DCU.  Members
who are not in relationship can avoid checking fees by having
direct deposit of at least $500/month.

I heard the other day that the letters were sent in 2 waves:
first to those who are presently in relationship, and then to
those who are presently not in relationship.  

./chris

    
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but if you look at the matrix of fees..
    Those people who have ONLY $5 "invested" in the DCU, are not charged
    fees...  In some ways, it seems as though the direction of the 
    comments by Mr Cockburn and some of our assumption/fears are that
    there are too many of these type accounts and that is what will
    be "gotten rid of" by implementing fees...
    
    
    John
    

    
    re .-1, you're wrong! If only it were that simple.
    
    What is with bank fee's? They don't add up to much for people paid
    Digital salaries, but I know what burns my tush - I *hate* paying a
    dollar here a dollar there when I can avoid.
    
    Given this complicated set of fees that tie you in every direction,
    a) I don't spend an hour a week to manage my money and avoid fees
    b) I pass in all categories, most of the time, but not always
    
    so I can see every month its going to be snip here, snip here, and it
    is going to be entirely exasperating.
    
    Suggestion : Send mail to all account holders without activity saying
    "we haven't spotted any activity, and wonder whether we should close
    this account". No-shows get the account closed and the money sent to
    the Attorney General as a lost creditor.
    
    Simon

    	Well the wife and I got our letters on Saturday, let me know when
    the petition drive starts we would like to sign one.  If this does take 
    affect I'll be looking for a new institution to do business with.  It's 
    a sad day when the people who work for you totally disregard what it is 
    you put them in office to do.

    Joe

re: .69

Simon, .68 is right.  If you ONLY have $5 in an account to keep your account
active, you don't pay any fees.  That's my situation.  I can't use DCU for
anything, but I have no desire to lose my membership, so I keep $5 in my
account.  None of the fees impact me because I don't use any services.

Bob

    
    It's funny before I wrote .68 about the $5 rule I hadn't read that the
    notes describing those folks who use (misuse, abuse) the "sub-accounts"
    as the ones that this set of "fees" is supposed to go after...
    
    (tongue in cheek here)... Gee, why not just go after them then?  ;-)...
    
    
    
    John
    
    

    Note that 4.8 currently holds a Board Memo on the subject of the
    new fees. We can/should probably discuss that as part of this topic.
    
    		Alfred

   I received the mailing from DCU about fees. My situation is that I use
  the DCU for a savings account and use the checking account to pay 
  miscellaneous bills. Money is auto-deposited every week to the checking 
  account. My wifes' money (she works elsewhere) is deposited into savings
  monthly.

   The reason I use the DCU in this manner is that it allows me to control how
  much money is available to spend through the checking account. My theory
  in my personal situation has been that if it takes a transfer then this
  'tripwire' makes us think more about our purchases.

   This method has worked so well that our financial situation is the best
  ever: we owe nothing to credit cards or the like. Our *savings* is growing.
  If my savings grows then this is good for the DCU and its members.

   I assume that the changes will effect me. As a result of the last problem
  most of my paycheck now goes to another bank. Frankly, I should have pulled
  all the way out then but there was a hope that things would work out.
  Needless to say that the fee hike/imposition/whatever makes me feel like 
  it's time to get all the way out.

    Normally read only,

     Bob
 

Several questions....

>                                                 In addition, our long-term
> plan is to increase member's savings and borrowing by continuing to offer
> "better" than competitive rates.

	Why is better in quotes?


>                                    The Board believes that the improvements
> made over the past 18 months encourage members to support the credit union. 

	I believe(d) this too.  Does the board actually feel that implementing
	the new fees with encourage members to support the credit union?

> The data we reviewed included such information as: 
> 
>  - On average, members are between the ages of 37 to 44
>  - On average, our membership's household income is $65,000 annually   
>  - Of our 46,000 checking accounts, 7,600 or 16.5% have less than $10 in them

	What possible conclusions can be drawn from this?  Is a complete set
	of data available?

> Further, the data underscores that low-balance accounts and low-balance loans
> cost the rest of the membership $2.5M annually.

	How can a low-balance loan cost the CU money?  What is low-balance?
	Don't all loans eventually become low-balanced?  I simply don't
	understand this...  Do you mean that if members took out $300.00 loans
	that it would hurt the financial security of the CU?

	Even if we had 50000 low-balance accounts, that would mean that each
	one would have to be costing the CU $50.00/year to amount to $2.5M.
	I can't believe these numbers.  Could more data about account costs
	be made available?

Genuinely inquiring,
Ray

    My response to this memo was forwarded to the directors ...
    
Subj:	Notefile DCU Note 4.8



>plan is to increase member's savings and borrowing by continuing to offer
>"better" than competitive rates.  The Board believes that the improvements

From current complaints that I have heard from members, DCU's rates are
not "better" than competetive.

>Our credit union is a COOPERATIVE.  And, by definition, prospers when its
>members participate and contribute by saving and borrowing with DCU. 

DCU is currently prospering ... at a record rate

>Given Digital Equipment Corporation's Work Force Reduction Plan, the future
>of the credit union is dependent on our current membership.  A study of our

Just because employees leave Digital's employ does not mean that they are
no longer members, and it does not mean that more existing employees cannot
be enticed into becoming members.

> - Of our 46,000 checking accounts, 7,600 or 16.5% have less than $10 in them

So, the answer should therefore be to automatically close a chequing account
dormant for say 6 months and transfer the balance automatically to the
share 1 account.

>Further, the data underscores that low-balance accounts and low-balance loans
>cost the rest of the membership $2.5M annually.  If there was equity across

How many of these accounts are $5 placeholder accounts ?  That is accounts
held to maintain membership in DCU, because it is a hassle to close and
later re-open a new account.  From what can be seen of the new fee structures,
nothing changes for these accounts ... no fees and no significant balance.

>THE CARROT -
>
>The first reason for the pricing structure is tied into the concept of 
>"Relationship Pricing".  In principal, the more services you use with 
>us, the less expensive it becomes.  First, and most directly, fees are 
>waived.  Second, as more members expand the services they use, the 
>more successful the institution becomes and the greater flexibility DCU 
>has in offering more competitive rates and programs.  

This is NOT a carrot ... this is a stick disguised as a carrot.  Now that
a relationship has been defined and a fee structure implemented, it is
purely at the whim of management to alter that relationship or alter the
fee structure to "fix" other problems.  A true carrot would offer better
than competetive rates for borrowers to encourage the lending of the
money available for lending, and higher than competetive savings rates,
especially for higher balances in any one account, to encourage more
savings which can of course then be leant.

>Secondly, we have to stop inappropriate account usage.  Members have to
>make a CHOICE - are they committed to the economic success of the COOPERATIVE
>and the other members who own it?  We believe the new pricing gives anyone
>who is genuinely interested in being a member of the COOPERATIVE a number 
>of options to avoid fees.  

As I have stated before, the relationship does not stop inappropriate usage
by placeholder accounts.  It punishes people for using an industry wide
practice of separate accounts for budgeting purposes.  At one time this was
considered an industry incentive!  Now you declare it inappropriate use.
If you don't want this kind of use, again, the answers are simple ...
discontinue multiple equivalent savings accounts and transfer inactive
accounts back to share 1.

>In conclusion, the turnaround of the credit union is complete and we need
>to focus on the changes necessary to ensure DCU's long-term success.  A
>credit union is a COOPERATIVE and is dependent on equity and the economic
>participation of its members.  The pricing changes, to be implemented in
>January, are designed to create an incentive for members to save and/or
>borrow with DCU and to ensure fairness for the entire membership. 

This is a short term strategy to increase DCU's capital ratio to the
dizzying heights recommended by the president, which is apparently higher
already than it has been in DCU history.

>This policy decision was voted at the April Board Meeting.  The vote was
>not unanimous.  Majority in favor, 5 to 2.  On September 22, the unredacted 
>minutes for the April 27 Board Meeting will be available in DCU Conference 
>Notes and at the branches.  The decision to redact this information until
>September 22 was made to allow time for the development of the relationship
>pricing program by the DCU Management, the training of DCU staff and the
>announcement to the entire membership. 

This information should not have been withheld.  By publishing it when it
should, the membership could have saved DCU incredible sums of money by
showing its rejection for this plan, before the implementation had been
taken so far.

Again, I ask you, the Directors to look at the spirit of the request of the
membership expressed in the Special Meeting, where it had once already
rejected president Cockburn's request to impose fees.

Stuart Brook
    
    ----------------------------------------------
    More comment ...
    
    Clearly, there are many ways to fix the problems that are
    perceived by DCU management as being unfair to the Credit Union, but
    instead, they have chosen to use the relationship and fees.
    
    This has a two fold effect ... the first, to fix symptoms, and
    second, the ability of the management of the CU, independent of
    the board, to turn what should be made as policy decisions into 
    operating decisions ... like at what level do we charge fees and
    how much can we charge.  How many other policy level decisions can
    be given to the president ?
    
    Stuart

Lisa,

I am sending you this as head of the board of directors, the one who posted
the Board Memo in the DCU notes file.  I am also writing as someone who
spent valuable time gathering signatures and votes for your candidacy to
the Board of Directors two years ago.

I have been an advocate of the carrot approach to encourage DCU members to
bring their banking (back) to DCU.  You, and the majority of the board,
don't seem to understand what a carrot approach means.  A carrot is not the
promise of not paying fees.  If fees are imposed, do you really think
people will put more of their money in DCU _to_avoid_paying_fees_?  I would
rather go to a financial institution who likes me just the way I am.  I
will not stay with an institution that considers me a black sheep because I
choose to use cash from savings to pay for a new car, or if I pay my loans
off.  That is why I cancelled my DCU Visa card, when my $4000 in annual
purchases was not enough to waive the annual fee.

This is one possible carrot approach:  Make the interest rates for low
savings balances small, say 1.5%.  Then, as the balance increases past a
certain point, the interest rate becomes 3.5%, clearly above the rest of
the market.  This encourages people who have the money to deposit to put it
all in the DCU.  The people who are not rich can also get interest, and the
low rate may encourage them to leave.

Another possible approach is to give a 1/4% interest bonus for additional
savings vehicles tied to the same account, and 1/4% interest reduction for
a loan which is added to a members profile.  The bank where we currently
have our mortgage, North Middlesex Savings Bank in Ayer, currently has such
a program called "Easy Does It".  Every month they remind me of bonuses I
could qualify for.

The concept of fees is not going to motivate people to bring their business
to DCU.  It will, instead, motivate some to leave the credit union.

Cooperatives exist so members will support each other.  If I want a fee
structure, I'll go to Bay Bank.

Elaine Ritchie

From:	STAR::BUDA "I am the NRA  20-Sep-1993 1152" 20-SEP-1993 12:03:42.25
To:	LEDS::ROSS
CC:	BUDA
Subj:	Notefile DCU Note 4.8


> - On average, members are between the ages of 37 to 44

Meaningless figure...

> - On average, our membership's household income is $65,000 annually   

Meaningless figure...

> - Of our 46,000 checking accounts, 7,600 or 16.5% have less than $10 in them

Something interesting finally.  A couple questions:

 1) Is this $10 the 'average' for the account?
    (i.e. is the account active?)
 2) How many of these accounts are considered to have a relationship so
    that above number is actually only 3,000?
 3) How much money does it cost DCU (actual costs - REAL NUMBERS PLEASE)
    service an account?
 4) What other avenues have been looked into to reduce cost of these accounts
    (i.e. fewer mailings, etc.)?

>Further, the data underscores that low-balance accounts and low-balance loans
>cost the rest of the membership $2.5M annually.  If there was equity across
>the membership, where all members contributed to the success of the credit
>union, the $2.5M in expense would instead come back to all of us in the form
>of better rates, improved operations, more programs and an improved capital
>ratio. 

DCU has NEVER mentioned low balance loans before.  This is another major
mistake, if you consider these taboo.  A CU is created to HELP its
membership.  Small loans lead to bigger loans...  This is called
CUSTOMER SERVICE.  DCU is playing a numbers game and forgetting how to
keep its members happy and coming back.

A credit union is based upon ALL the members putting money together so
that the group is able to loan money to its members at a better than
normal rate and to return a better than normal rate on investments.

The credit union should NOT try to please a small percentage of its
large depositors...  This is currently happening and will lead to
actions by the majority if its members.

	- mark buda
	Concerned member of DCU

    
    There's one unfortunate oversight with the memo posted in note 4.8..
    
    The facts are there ARE better loan rates, better charge card rates,
    better mortgage rates at OTHER banks or credit unions.
    
    Basically the only thing that applies to a member like myself and wife
    who have a real low balance DCU VISA, and DCU savings and checking accounts
    is we'll keep our better loans/charge cards and go where the checking 
    services are free.....thanks for the 'stick', we were looking for a good 
    reason to consolidate our business.   To the DCU board, we apologize for 
    'wasting' the membership's resources and will remedy the fact almost 
    immediately!
    
    BTW, I'll keep the 5$ savings account just in case I ever do
    find better rate on a DCU loan, unless of course a fee eventually gets
    slapped on that as well.
    
    --Bert 
    

    The question is how do you define competetive ?
    
    To me, competetive means being adjusting your rates to be a leader,
    thus if Bank X is offering a loan at 10%, to be competetive, DCU
    should offer loans at 9.75 to 9.95% ... that is being competetive.
    A loan at 9.0 to 9.75 is being agressively competetive.  If your
    rate is 10%, like anybody else, that isn't being competetive, that's
    following the sheep ... and nearly price fixing!
    
    Stuart

    re .85
    
    If DCU's rates aren't (at least at times) better, or their T&Cs aren't
    better, then DCU is not being competetive.  Being the *same* is not
    being compeetive ... it is being ... well ... the same.
    
    If you run a race, and your goal is to run about the same pace and
    finish about the same place as everyone else, you aren't being
    competetive.  To be competetive, you have to drive to do better than
    the rest.  Now to be sure, you can't do it all the time, and you
    are just a competitor.
    
    DCU is being just a competitor, but doing little to be competetive.
    
    As to VISA rates ... you have to compare with more than just GMA,
    because you can obtain credit cards from virtually anywhere that
    will issue one, wherever they are located ... Iowa, Florida, Texas
    etc.
    
    Maybe DCU is far less than competetive in Colorado ... but perhaps
    this is because the Colorado economy is amazingly quite buoyant
    right now.  Perhaps rates for Colorado members should be different
    from elsewhere ?
    
    
    Stuart

Currently, BayBank and Fleet are offering 5.75% home equity
loans.  This is a teaser rate that will go up in
January, 1995.

Given that there's no cost to switch, I suspect that many 
will switch.

Andover Bank bank offers home equity loans at Prime + 1.0%.
DCU is prime + 1.5%. 

Gim

Well, I've been calling around for No Points No Closing costs refinancing.
I'll eliminate Mortgage Companies, since they don't support banking services.

  DCU has 7.625%
  A local savings bank has 7.5%


My husband considered refinancing his car loan.

  DCU has 6.9% for 24 - 60 months.
  ICFCU in Fitchburg has 5.99% (or 5.49%, I don't remember) for 36 months.

DCU's competition isn't Shawmut or Bay Bank, both heavily into fees.  It's the
small banks and credit unions that offer real customer service.


DCU can be considered to be better in the savings area:

   DCU Money Market        2.9%
   ICFCU Money Market      2.75%

   DCU Share Draft         2.33%
   ICFCU Share Draft       2.00%  ** Note, minimum to get interest, $10.00
                                     No charge for foreign ATM transactions

My husband takes the cut in interest in lieu of the foreign atm usage, which for
him is 4-5 times a month.  It more than covers any interest he would lose.  Our
joint vacation savings account is also at ICFCU because they don't complain
about depositing rolls of coins, they have Saturday hours, and we sometimes need
the free foreign atm access in an emergency.

Elaine

    
    
    Here's an interesting question... Seeing as Ms. Ross points out in her
    board memo that the minutes about fees were redacted in April so that
    it would allow the CU Staff set rates and train staff to understand
    the rates, it would seem to me that a subset of our membership was
    given information while a much larger set of the membership was left
    in the dark.   Now the question, for those that got to know of the 
    changes real early on, how many changed the way they did business?
    In any case, they were/are members of the CU and got to know about
    this early on... Is that fair?
    
    Or does the DCU have a policy (like many banks) that if you are an
    employee that means you are exempt from most fees?  So in effect
    these people don't really care if they have a relationship or not,
    because they know as long as they work there they have a relationship.
    Just because you work for the CU and have an account there, doesn't 
    necessarily mean you do all your business there... "Only a fool
    wouldn't look for the best deal..."
    
    
    It still smells like the case where the same 5-2 majority decided in
    a future meeting (perhaps May) to redact that portion of the minutes
    because they *KNEW* that there would be a *FIRESTORM* against this.
    It's much harder to come to a comprimise on this in 3 months than it
    would be in 7 months...  If we could have an *EXACT* reason for the
    redaction that would be nice, me I do not believe it was to set rates
    and train employees.  Give me a break you can set rates and train
    employees while still letting the bulk of the membership know that
    they are going to get stabbed in the back.
    
    
    
    John
    

    re. Competative rates.
    
    I recently bought my wife a new car.  Checking around for a car loan, I
    found a local bank that had rates lower than DCU.  I went with the
    Bank.
    
    For me, DCU is convenient, but when I need a loan etc. I shop around
    and whoever gives me the best deal gets my business.  That's why my
    mortgage ISN'T with DCU, my wife's car loan ISN'T with DCU, the bulk of
    my savings ISN'T with DCU nor are my credit cards.
    
    					John G. (a relationship member)

    I would encourage anyone to let the directors know by mail that
    they didn't find DCU even close to competetive.  Also, I would
    encourage anyone opposed to fees to write to the directors too.
    Their e-mail addresses are in here i a couple places.
    
    Please don't vote with your feet yet.
    
    Stuart

    I'm a remote member. I already pay fees for ATM use and I can't easily
    make deposits. But I stayed with DCU because of no-fee checking and
    sub-accounts for budgeting.

    So if I go to a local bank, I may pay fees on checking, but that would
    be offset by not having to pay foreign ATM fees. Plus, I could make
    deposits with no problem.

    That just leaves sub-accounts for budgeting. Hmmm... time to go shopping!

    Paul

RE:         <<< Note 694.92 by KAOFS::S_BROOK "DENVER A Long Way" >>>

>>    Also, I would
>>    encourage anyone opposed to fees to write to the directors too.
>>    Their e-mail addresses are in here i a couple places.
    
     Where might those addresses be found?  Can they be placed in a more
centralized and easy-to-find location?

                                    Greg

    
>     Where might those addresses be found?  Can they be placed in a more
>centralized and easy-to-find location?
    
    They're in 5.1 in a topic reserved for them. Can't get much easier to
    find. :-)
    
    		Alfred

    re: .84 According to the 'valued-member-but-we-consider-you-pond-scum'
    letter, the answer is no. You have to have at $500 a month direct
    deposited into your CHECKING account to have a relationship. I'm in the
    same situation you are - I have most of my direct deposit put into a
    sub-account set aside to pay the mortgage and move it when I write the
    sharedraft.

	RE: .97 If you don't use the checking account why do you have it?
	If you just have a savings account there aren't any fees on it.

			Alfred

I just received a VAXmail message directly from Lisa Demauro Ross which was 
sent to a distribution list. I am apparently on the list due to .0, as I have 
not yet sent mail to Lisa Ross or any Director.

In the memo she is inviting phone calls to her DTN at specific dates and 
times to discuss the DCU Pricing Policy.

-stephen

  re .-2

  I got one of those too.  Interesting because I never sent anything to any of
the directors.  Only made entries in this notes file.

    
    I got a mail message as well. I *did* send Lisa, and the other board
    members, mail though. Personally I view the mail as a personal,
    practically engraved, invitation to talk. Anyone who is seriously
    interested in being heard should probably take her up on to offer
    to talk. I think it's great that she didn't limit her mail to the
    people who sent her mail. It shows that she's listening to what people
    say here. That's goodness.

    			Alfred

>                 <<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
>                           -< DCU >-
> ======================================================================
> Note 694.97      I'm a Relationship Member!                  97 of 102
> CTHQ::COREY                          18 lines  21-SEP-1993 13:42:41.82
>                    -< Nickle and dime  >-
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Thanks for the reply.  The day this new policy takes effect will be
>     the day ALL my DCU accounts will be closed.  I left Shawmut, Baybank
>     and Middlesex for the same reasons.  I like to manage my accounts
>     my own way and I don't see why I should be charged a fee because my
>     money is put in a primary savings account instead of checking.

Re: .97,

Exactly the DCU's point.  I believe the DCU has got you.  If you do a
quick survey of the local banks, you'll be hard press to find a
deal better than the DCU for checking.

Gim

    
    I, too, received the message, while I was composing my letter to the
    BOD (following message).  One sentence in the message has me puzzled.
    
    	"On September 22, the posting of the unredacted April Board
    	 Minutes is scheduled so that you, the member, have an opportunity
    	 to review the Board's discussion and vote on this important
    	 policy."
    
    Is this saying that I can review the discussion and I can vote on this
    important policy?  If so, my vote is a resounding "nay".  The way it
    is worded, this could be construed.  However, it's most likely that
    she meant that I can review the Board's discussion and (the Board's)
    vote on this important policy.  Too bad.  I'd love to have seen the
    outcome had it been put to a vote of the entire membership.
    
    Lou
    

							September 21, 1993

Members of the DCU Board of Directors:

I recently received my "Dear Valued Member" letter from DCU President
Chuck Cockburn.  Although I personally will not be assessed fees under 
the new "relationship pricing" guidelines, I must object to your
persecutive policy against certain members based on their supposed
financial well-being.  I have also read your memo of September 1993 regarding 
the new DCU Pricing Policy.  To say that it rubbed me the wrong way would
be a gross understatement.  Certain passages of the memo, in my opinion,
are blatantly wrong.

	"In addition, our long-term plan is to increase member's 
	 savings and borrowing by continuing to offer "better" than 
	 competitive rates."

Your current rates are neither competitive nor "better".  That is why
most of my savings are kept at another institution.  My DCU Share 1
account pays a modest 2.76% APR, while my passbook savings account at
a nearby local bank pays 3.25%.  My mortgage is also with another
institution simply because the rates are better.

	"A study of our membership demographics causes us to conclude 
	 that many of our members are using DCU for convenient free 
	 services but are using other institutions for their borrowing 
	 and savings needs."

And for the simple reason stated above...better rates.

	"In conclusion, the turnaround of the credit union is complete 
	 and we need to focus on the changes necessary to ensure DCU's 
	 long-term success."

I disagree that the turnaround is complete.  The members/owners have
repeatedly voiced their opinion that they do not want fees, but the
board is choosing to implement them against the wishes of the member-
ship.

	"A credit union is a COOPERATIVE and is dependent on equity 
	 and the economic participation of its members."

Charging fees to certain members based on their "relationship" with
DCU is far from being equitable.

	"The decision to redact this information until September 22 
	 was made to allow time for the development of the relationship
	 pricing program by the DCU Management, the training of DCU 
	 staff and the announcement to the entire membership."

Or maybe it was because the anticipated opposition to this decision would
be given less time to react.

I am a charter member of DCU and had considered it a benefit of my
employment with Digital.  Over the past few years this benefit has
slowly turned into a liability.  In life you can not choose your relatives.
But I certainly am free to choose with which financial institution I
want a "relationship".  And if fees are instituted in January 1994,
my "relationship" will cease to be with DCU.

				Sincerely,



				Louis M. Cesario

    
    In my opinion, DCU is attempting to downsize by getting rid of all the
    undesireable accounts such as myself.  

    In the past I have had mixed emotions in dealing with DCU.  The people
    at the teller windows have always been fine to work with but the DCU
    policies have not.

    When the previous go around with fees happened, I shopped around at 
    real banks and found they were offering basic services for free.  I
    moved about 75% of my business to a real bank.  Over time, I have been
    moving some of this business back to DCU based on the assumption that
    the current BOD was in tune with providing basic services and improving
    the DCU policies.  I was somewhat leery of the long term prospect for
    DCU to change it "bank" attitude without having cleaned out most of the
    upper management of the "dcu bank".  Many of the same people who made life
    difficult the first time around were still there and they appeared to
    have common cause in Chuck.

    It appears I had good reason to be some what sceptical of the DCU.  I
    have been a member from the start and a various time utilize the loan
    services, have larger balances and at other times this is not feasible.
    Since my current car loan is lower that a "valued customer" should have,
    and since I just paid my daughters tuition at college.

    Being a poor customer and a burden on my fellow DCU members, I am going
    to help by terminating my relationship with the DCU.  My local "for 
    profit" bank is offering a home equity loan that is almost too easy to
    get.  All I had to do was call an 800 number, give 3 key pieces of 
    information, provide documentation for paystub, assessed valuation,
    current loan amount and proof of insurance, and $30,000 was available.
    I guess I can pay off my higher interest DCU loan with this and save
    the DCU from having to sacrifice itself servicing a piddly $2000 
    balance on my car loan at 12% so they can relend it a 5 or 6% if they
    can.

    Since it will take until the end of the year to move all the business
    out of the DCU, I may still be around to vote (or sign petitions) but
    think maybe this would not be fair to all those who think fees are 
    great (and Hillary is going to make health care free).  Good luck 
    with the bureaucrats driving the credit union into becoming a real 
    bank.  Maybe I should write my congress critter and suggest that they 
    review the nonprofit status of credit unions.

    Bob (A charter member but that does not matter to DCU)

re: .107

Gee, according to VTX LIVEWIRE, as of 6/28/93, DCU does have 60 month loans on
used cars at 8.4%.  I'm curious what sent you looking elsewhere?

Elaine

RE: <<< Note 694.95 by CVG::THOMPSON "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" >>>

>>    They're in 5.1 in a topic reserved for them. Can't get much easier to
>>    find. :-)
  
     Can someone lend me a few neurons?  I tell ya I LOOKED for them addresses!

                                       Greg

    Note 5 seems to be reserved for the board's addresses.  Reply 1 has a
    VMSmail distribution list.

    Why switch?  We !@#$%^&*() own the DCU.

It's clear that they want us non-relationship types to bail out and quit
'abusing' them. But, I'd rather fight than switch. If the fees come on anyway
I'll just drop to a $5 placeholder account and then vote with vengeance.

RE: <<< Note 694.116 by ALFAXP::M_HYDE "From the laboratory of Dr. Jekyll" >>>
    
>>It's clear that they want us non-relationship types to bail out and quit
>>'abusing' them. But, I'd rather fight than switch. If the fees come on anyway
>>I'll just drop to a $5 placeholder account and then vote with vengeance.

     That's the key.  The board members who want the fees must realize that
these "abusers" each have a vote.  They believe that they can get enough to
leave so that they will not respond to this attack with their ballots.

     When the next member selections come about, there is no need for 
campaigning.  Simply display the list of how each incumbent voted on the
fee issue.

                                      Greg

I also received one of this email notes from Lisa. On one hand I was pleased
because it is an attempt to open communications on many of these hot
topics.

I was also disturbed because I never sent a note to Lisa or any other board
member. My only written words on the DCU have been in here. That tells me
that either; 1) someone forwarded one of my notes to her, or 2) someone
created the distribution list using addresses from this conference.

In either case, it does not seem to be an appropriate use of this
conference.

						Mark

    
>I was also disturbed because I never sent a note to Lisa or any other board
>member. My only written words on the DCU have been in here. That tells me
>that either; 1) someone forwarded one of my notes to her, or 2) someone
>created the distribution list using addresses from this conference.

    Lisa reads this conference. I know that. I suspect that other board
    members do as well. What is the problem with reading this conference?
    If you don't what someone to know what you think, sit on your hands.
    Any note you write here can be read by anyone in the company from
    Bob Palmer on down.

    What happened is that someone, Lisa in this case, read notes from
    people that addressed issues. She did not feel comfortable replying
    in notes so she sent people mail hoping to start a dialogue. Frankly,
    why anyone would be disturbed by any of this is completely beyond me.
    I get mail from people who don't feel comfortable writing notes all
    the time. It's quite common and I appreciate that they want to express
    themselves enough to find alternate means to do so.

>In either case, it does not seem to be an appropriate use of this
>conference.

    You'll have to spell this out for me because I don't get it.

    			Alfred

    Re .-1
    
    I presume Lisa got the list of concerned members from this conference.
    I see nothing wrong with that. This is a conference to discuss the DCU.
    The fact that Lisa is addressing those that have brought up issues here
    seems fine by me.
    
    Remember when you write into a notesfile your note is readable by all
    Digital employees and they can do with it what they please within the
    company. They can even extract notes and forward them as mail if they
    so wish. There is no policy (fortunately) that disallows that.
    
    Dave

The following was sent to the DCU Board of Directors:

Dear DCU Board of Directors:

I am most disturbed by a recent notice I received from the Digital Credit
Union.  While being informed that I was a relationship member of the DCU,
I also noticed that new checking fees would be implemented.  This seems in
direct conflict with the DCU members attending the infamous meeting at the
Sheraton Tara.  I attended that meeting, along with my friends from work,
and we voted to rescind the the fees.  Does the Board of Directors have a
memory problem?

I am very much confused over this categorization of membership types.  When
I wished to open accounts for my family members, the DCU gave me prefixes.
This was the manner in which the DCU issued the accounts.  Now I hear that
members that use prefixes are considered abusers!  Is that true?

During the past DCU debacle over fees, I canceled the checking account I
had set up for my son at college.  I used this system to deposit money
into his checking account.  He could therefore cash his checks at college
for his living expenses.  It was certainly not worth the checking fees to
continue with this in this manner.  This whole thing with checking fees
has certainly impacted me in a very negative manner.   Also, he was
obligated by the DCU to maintain a minimum $5 in his prefix account, as
this was necessary for his DCU issued Stafford Loan.  The reason I opted for
the Stafford Loan at the DCU was the convenience of having to deal locally 
in the event any problems may arise concerning the loan.  How surprised I 
was to learn recently that both my son's Stafford Loans were sold to another
bank.  If I had realized that the DCU would turn around and sell Stafford 
Loans, I would have got them at my local bank.  So much for convenience.  

I've been with Digital for over 21 years.  I've been using the DCU for most
of the time it has been available.  The event a couple of years ago,
compounded with the most recent notice about the reinstatement of checking
fees has me wondering why I have stuck it out.  I can get better rates at
another local credit union.  

I think the DCU Board of Directors better get into a reality check as to 
the wishes of its members.  It may be time again to rescind more than just
fees.

Sincerely,

Kenneth D. Patterson

    I'm still confused by my own status with the DCU.  I don't qualify as a
    relationship member, but neither will I have to pay fees for my
    accounts.  Am I abusing DCU?  Am I costing it money?  If not, then why
    isn't DCU treating me as though I have a relationship?
    
    --Pat

  re .-1

  Cause you aren't making them enough money.  The Credit cards are a example
of stupidity.  They are free to relational members but they make DCU money
no matter who gets them.

    
RE: .115
    
    >               -< We are not only customers, We are THE owners >-
    >   Why switch?  We !@#$%^&*() own the DCU.
    
    I agree.  I've been asking people who have written saying that they are
    leaving DCU to stay on board.  
    
RE: .123
    
>  Cause you aren't making them enough money.  The Credit cards are a example
>of stupidity.  They are free to relational members but they make DCU money
>no matter who gets them.
    
    Groan...  Another battle I tried fighting and lost.  DCU members that
    were paying interest to DCU (but didn't meet the free card
    requirements) could not get the fee waived.  With the credit card
    market saturated and everybody trying steal everybody elses customers,
    DCU members had NO trouble finding free cards.  So they simply cancelled
    their DCU cards and are now providing income to somebody else.
    
    Right now the credit cards are simply goodies that you give away to
    "relationship members".  DCU members that might find the credit union 
    difficult to use for whatever reason, can easily use the DCU credit
    card.  The member would be satisfied, the credit union would make money
    on the interest and interchange income.  Naaaahhhh...  Too crazy to
    work.  But I wonder how so many can be doing so well by offering
    not only free cards, but rebate programs to boot?  Bottom line is that
    DCU has made a conscious decision to forego credit card interest in
    pursuit of a $25 annual fee.  We only make about $100,000 a year on
    annual fees for credit cards.  That is PEANUTS compared to the lost
    potential interest income and interchange income if DCU could get a 
    card in every members hands.  IMO, it's another case of watching the pennies
    while the dollars walk out the front door.
    

re: <<< Note 694.124 by ASE003::GRANSEWICZ >>>

>   Bottom line is that DCU has made a conscious decision to forego credit 
>   card interest in pursuit of a $25 annual fee.  

	Now, who, exactly, are we talking about here?  Is it the DCU Board
	of Directors, or the President/CEO of the DCU, Mr Chuck Cockburn?

	In any case, which of the two really run the DCU?

>        In any case, which of the two really run the DCU?

This is a question that i have been asking now for some time ...

Technically, the president runs the CU, but policy and direction should be
defined by the BoD.  However, time and time again, it really looks like
the tail is wagging the dog.  The president says "we need this policy"
(like fees and relationship banking 'coz we're losing some mythical 2.5
million per year) and many members of the BoD jump to his tune.

Who is the problem here ?  The president or the BoD or both ?  It's a
good question.

Stuart

    RE .-1
    
    The President can never be the problem. From the point of view of the
    membership as a whole it is BoD that is either doing a good job or is
    a problem. Look at the possibilities:
    
    	a) Predicate: The BoD is not representing the memberships wishes
    	   adequately.
    	   Conclusion: The BoD is not doing a good job
    
    	   I know the above is relatively circular but read on.
    
    	b) Predicate: The President is screwing up and is still the
           president.
    	   Conclusion: The BoD is screwing up because it is their
           responsibility to fire the President if they're not happy with his
           performance. If they just put up with it they are to blame as far as
    	   the membership is concerned.
    
    Let's be direct here. What I think is happening is that President
    brings policy to the BoD and they just nod it through. They're not even
    properly analyzing the recommendations. Read the minutes. From my
    reading of the minutes I note the following behaviours of the BOD:
    
    	Phil Gransewicz - takes a real interest and heavily questions
                          things. Most of the rest of the BoD don't want
    	                  to be that active. Phil also seems to be much
    			  more in tune with the membership than the others.
    
    	Paul Kinzelman	- Activist. Speaks his mind and usually pushes
                          things.
    
    	Tanya Dawkins	- Seems to analyze and question financials
                          presented by CEO. But prepared to go with the
    	                  rest as far as policy.
    
    	Lisa DeMauro Ross
    		       - Like the following but has no credibility because
    			 she broke her two most important campaign
    			 promises:
    
    			a) To hold the line on fees (she didn't)
    			b) To foster open and honest communication (she
    		           didn't, witness the hiding of the April
    			   minutes).
    
    	Tom McEachin	- Can't tell them apart. Appear to often not turn
    	Phil Milbury      up or not attend the full meeting. Rarely if
    	Gail Mann         ever question everything. NEVER disagree with the
                          President. Have no concept of membership
                          sentiment.
    
    Dave

Dave, 



I most certainly agree with your analysis, which boils down to "look after
the board, and they'll look after the president" ...but let's be honest,
what are our chances of getting a Board which is truly representative
of the membership ?  There will always be people who will run who have
other motives for being on a CU board ... if nothing else, simply to say
that they have served.  What is the possibility of someone running, saying
the right things to get elected and then follow the president's lead ...
again and again and again.

Begins to sound like we need some other way to improve membership
representation without the costs / hassles of a special meeting.

Stuart

                    NASA            Digital Employees
                    FCU                   FCU
Number on BOD *      7                    5
    
    Out board has 7 members not 5.
    
    			Alfred

    
    ... or maybe Elaine knows something we don't.
    
    Phil, Paul, are you still Directors in good standing?  :-)
    
    
    ----------------
    
    NASA FCU seems like a good "benchmark" candidate, along with WCU. Any
    chance we can get some information on fees, interest, etc?
    

    
    Depends on who you ask... ;-)  As far as I know I still am.  You'll be
    3rd ones to know should my status change.
    
    Elaine was probably thinking about the Supervisory Comm.
    

From:	SPECXN::WITHERS "Bob Withers  26-Sep-1993 1358" 26-SEP-1993 14:09:27.31
To:	@DCU-BOARD
CC:	WITHERS
Subj:	DCU: Thank you for your letter of resignation.

						Robert C. Withers
						4520 Wileys Rd
						Peyton, Co. 80831
						719.592.5108 (work)

						September 22nd, 1993

Board of Directors
President
Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union
141 Parker Street, PK05
P.O. Box 130
Maynard, Ma. 01754

Dear Directors, Mr. President:

Thank you for your letter of resignation, dated September 10th, 1993, which
began, "Dear Valued Member".  Given the establishment of fees at my credit
union, despite the clear mandate that I and one thousand, three hundred other
credit union members gave at the special meeting two years ago, I must assume
that you are no longer willing to serve as my representative and are stepping
down.  Please let me know your last date of service -- it is customary to
provide thirty days' notice and I anticipate that you will retire from the board
no later than October 10th, 1993.

There are several key issues here.  First is the board's imposition of fees,
despite the mandate of the special meeting and the accrual of record profits --
as yet undistributed to the membership.  Second is the denigrating and
insulting proposition that up to half the member-owners of the DCU are abusing
the services provided.  The third is a misguided and incorrect world-view of
what cooperative means in the sense of a Credit Union.  Lastly, the secrecy 
around these fees is simply unacceptable -- deciding half a year ago to impose
these fees, yet keeping it secret -- this is why we fired the last board.

Two years ago, I stood shoulder-to-shoulder with thirteen hundred other DCU
member-owners in displaying my displeasure at the behavior of the previous Board
of Directors.  The imposition of fees and the so-called Information Protection
Policy produced an unprecedented insurrection.  At that time, we obtained a
roll-back of the fees and the scheduling of an election.  None of those board
members serve today.  I want to emphasize the word "serve."  You, as a board
member or president, serve at the discretion of the membership.  We own the
Credit Union.  A year-and-a-half later, you impose a fee structure which was
resoundingly rejected by your employers.  Two years later, you tell us.

The Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union is in the best financial state, the
Mangone Fraud not withstanding, in recent times.  Because of barely-competitive
loan rates, the DCU cannot loan out its full potential resources.  This is
neither the time to nickel-and-dime the membership, nor to squeeze depositors. 
This is the time to improve competitiveness.  Rather, you as a Director or the
President, have chosen to alienate the membership -- the owners of our Credit
Union.

This is simply not acceptable behavior and so it is grounds for your dismissal.

The Board meeting minutes, as posted in the DCU Notes file, are full of the term
"abuse" because members "use" the DCU as it was intended -- with club accounts
for budgeting, savings accounts for savings, and share-draft for checking.  When
I joined the Credit Union ten years ago, this is exactly the usage pattern
suggested.  It appears now that those who use multiple accounts, keep a large
cash flow, or small actual balances are viewed as leaches on the membership. 
This is the attitude of a Bank, not a Credit Union -- a member cooperative whose
purpose is to support all the needs of the entire constituency.

By analogy, I belong to a Rural Electric Cooperative.  I don't use much
electricity because my house is insulated like a brick and I heat with wood. 
Using the "pull their own weight" model, you would have the REA penalize me for
not being a big spender.  Most of the members of the Electric Cooperative use
the services as I do.  Yet, you would have them force me to use more services.

I am personally insulted that half the membership is viewed as being
"subsidized" by the other half.  If anything, the view should be that the large
depositors should be rewarded, rather than the average individual penalized. 
Adding fees hurts half the membership and does nothing for the "Relationship"
members that they don't have today.  There is only disincentive to become a
"Relationship" member because the "Relationship" status is uncompetitive.  Those
members who don't hold the privileged status are penalized and encouraged to
take their business elsewhere.

Ms. Ross describes this as the "Carrot and the Stick."  I see it as the "Stick
and the Bigger Stick".

Under the principle of "reducto ad absurdum," there may only be one member of
the Credit Union, which precludes anyone from being subsidized by the
"relationship" member.   Webster's New Twentieth Century Unabridged Dictionary
defines Credit Union as

	a co-operative association for pooling savings of members and 
	making loans to them at a low rate of interest.

It further defines co-operative as

	(a) 1. operating jointly to the same end; inclined to cooperate.  2. 
	designating or of an organization, as for the production or 
	marketing of goods, owned collectively by members who share in 
	its benefits.

	(n) 1.a co-operator.  2. a co-operative society or enterprise; also a 
	member of such a society or enterprise.

In other words, members contribute to their ability for the common good --
everyone shares and everyone benefits.  This is in direct contrast to the
Board's expressed view that some are more equal than others or that some are
benefiting at the expense of others.  Making separate classes of equal members
is diametrically contrary to the principles of a credit union.

The last, and, perhaps, most unacceptable aspect of your insubordinate
disobeying of the members' mandate against new fees is the secrecy surrounding
their imposition.  The previous board cloaked itself in secrecy, which took
determined effort to break.  Yet, with the imposition of fees, you withheld
information for almost half-a-year.  This smacks of something-to-hide.  Had you
been straightforward with your constituents, you would not be in the position
having to explain your actions.  Secrecy, as much as the fees, are what angered 
the member-owners of the credit union two years ago.  This secrecy is simply
unacceptable.

Nor, is the justification that the secrecy was needed to prepare the marketing
plan.  You have behaved contrary to the mandate of the membership.  You have
also hidden that fact from us.

This is simply unacceptable.

Further, your marketing plan is a resounding failure. You cannot sell me on
something I don't want.  Your approach has simply infuriated me.

The secrecy of this plan has shattered any trust which I had in you to run my
credit union.  

Where is the open communication promised in many of your vitae when running for
the board?

Ms. Ross offers to discuss this, fait accompli, fee structure with the
membership.  While I appreciate the sentiment, I do not believe that this is
open to discussion.  It is simply contrary to the mandate of the membership.

I will decline to accept your resignation if you respond to me, in writing, that
you opposed the fees and the secrecy surrounding them.

If you supported the fees and the secrecy, but act immediately to rescind them
and publicly apologize to the membership, I will accept your assurance that you
will serve out the remainder of your term without imposing additional fees and
that you will not run for re- election.

If you continue to support the fee structure and secrecy, I demand that you post
your last date of service publicly, no later than the customary 30 days notice
from the date of your of September 10th.  Posting this date in the DCU DECNotes
Conference will be acceptable.  Mr.  President, I am willing to post this
information on your behalf.

If you support the fee structure and the secrecy, and you tell me that you are
not resigning, I will work for your removal from the Board through the
special-meeting process.  I will work for your individual removal, allowing the
membership to express support of those they believe work for the owners of this
co-operative.

If the fees go into effect as scheduled, I will move all of my business save
that needed to maintain membership, to other financial institutions.  I will
maintain my membership so that I can work for your removal.

I await your earliest response,

						Sincerely,


						Bob Withers
						Member-owner since 1983

    
    hear hear! excellent letter!
    
    Simon

     Word!

Reposting with corrected Director count.  Perhaps we need more?

Re: .128

Interesting point, Stuart.  Do you think that increasing the number of people on
the Board would help the problem?  Having asked that, I wonder aloud what the
board sizes of other credit unions are...

                    NASA            Digital Employees
                    FCU                   FCU

                    5/93                 7/93

Total Assets    $ 255,087,000        $ 350,971,875

Shares          $ 237,774,000        $ 328,419,623

Loans           $ 153,873,000        $ 203,268,693

Members                48,143                ??

Number on BOD *             7                    7


* NASA refers to the members of the board of directors as Directors.  DCU refers
  to theirs as Board Members.  Tells you something.

NASA FCU information received from Probe newsletter, similar to DCU's Network
newsletter.  Probe apparently prints the financial summary sheet of the annual
report each year after the annual meeting, so the member's don't have to beg
for it.

Elaine

What I was trying to say in .129 and the revised .136 is this:

How many members do we currently have?  Last number I remember was 80,000.

So, if we have 80,000 members, is a 7 member board of directors a fair number?
Can the same number that represents a credit union half our size (60%) run well
with the same number of directors?

I'll post the info I have on NASA FCU when I get a chance.

Elaine

    I am normally a "read only" noter in conferences like this, but after
    my wife and I read our "Dear Valued Member" letters I had to find out
    what other people think.  This notes conference has been very
    educational and I thank all of you for taking your time to enter you
    opinions here.
    
    The arrogance exhibited by the DCU management, and the apparent
    attitude of 5 of 7 DCU board members, is astounding.  
    
    I don't want to deal with an institution where 1300+ of us should have
    to take time to correct the BoD and DCU management every two years.  I
    would prefer to spend my time and energy elsewhere.
    
    Even though my actions may impact the rest of the members/owners of
    DCU, I must say good bye DCU.  Good luck to you valued members who
    elect to stay with DCU.

    	When I first joined DCU (which was when it started), I can
    recall distinctly that it was promoted as a place where DEC employees
    could get together to help one another.  Funds deposited would be
    made available as loans to other DEC employees who might otherwise
    have difficulties obtaining such loans.  I viewed this as a good
    deal.  It was also convenient to have a credit union available
    right at work.
    
    	Over the years I've kept nearly all of my savings there.  And
    I was dismayed over the checking fees the last time, showed up to
    vote out the old BOD, and put on record the desire to NOT have
    checking fees.  I've done what I could to continue to make it possible
    for fellow employees to get loans and have checking accounts at
    reasonable cost.
    
    	It is now amply apparent that the times are changing.  So be it.
    I'm fairly resistent to change.  It's WORK to go out and change
    accounts around, find reasonable rates, transfer money, etc.  It's
    work I don't want.  However, it looks like that a drop in assets is
    going to be the only thing that gets attention.  Fine.  I presume
    that you are all prepared for a very disenchanted membership to
    put their money elsewhere.  When are you going to realize how much
    more difficult it is to get members back than it is to keep them
    happy??
    
    	I hope that others do the same thing.  I'm willing to bet that
    a sudden drop in assets is a much better attention getter than the
    threat of more special meetings, more wrangling, more complaining
    in notes files.  It's obvious that some are leaving completely
    already.  Are you listening yet...
    
    Dave Eklund
    
    

    
    I remember the same pitch in the early days, and eventually it also
    attracted me into the fold.
    
    In my discussion with Lisa today, she said that the currentl board is
    looking over a lot of things in DCU's past 11 years that "just don't make
    good business sense."
    
    Evidently, a classless, mutually beneficial cooperative is one of those
    things.
    

    
    Re: .140
    
    > In my discussion with Lisa today, she said that the currentl board is
    > looking over a lot of things in DCU's past 11 years that "just don't make
    > good business sense."
    
    Well if that doesn't say it all I don't know what does.  They have
    decided that this is a profit making concern looking only to the bottom
    line for evidence of success and not a cooperative which exists for the
    benefit of its members.
    
    Steve
    

*****************
*               *
* d i g i t a l *                       
*               *                          INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
*****************

                                                DATE:   06-Oct-1993
                                                FROM:   Gary Hicks
                                                DEPT:   RPSU,  Atlanta CSC
                                                DTN:    343-1692
                                                LOC/MAIL STOP:  ALF 1-3/P26
                                                ENET:   RHETT::HICKS

TO:       Lisa Ross, Tom McEachin, Tanya Dawkins, Phil Gransewicz, 
          Gail Mann, Paul Milbury, Paul Kinzelman


Ladies and Gentlemen --


     I would like to congratulate you on your accomplishments since  you  took
over  as  the  Board of Directors of our credit union.  When you took over DCU
there were many problems as a result of the Mangone case and the irresponsible
and  arrogant behavior of the previous board.  In the last year and a half you
and the staff of DCU have succeeded in reconciling the  losses  from  Mangone,
redesigning  the  auto loan portfolio, developing and approving changes to the
bylaws that form a membership bill of rights and submitting those  changes  to
the  NCUA  for  their consideration.  You and the staff have also supervised a
year of record ($5 million)  profits  for  our  credit  union  and  a  greatly
improved credit ratio.  In short you have much to be proud of and I think that
you have turned the corner in restoring confidence in DCU  and  improving  its
financial condition.

     However, I  am  quite  disappointed  in  your  decision  to  implement  a
"relationship banking" philosophy that creates a dual membership class system.
In my opinion, this philosophy is inconsistent with the idea of credit  unions
as  member  collectives  formed  to  serve  those members.  In short, DCU is a
credit union, not a bank.  A policy that selectively imposes fees on 50% - 66%
of members because they do not meet DCU's definition of "relationship members"
should have no place in any credit union.

     I have read the information that DCU released on relationship banking.  I
have  also  read  the  minutes  of  all  DCU board meetings since you all were
elected and your Network bulletins.  Unless I missed something, I have not yet
seen any acceptable justification for imposing new fees on members when DCU is
making record profits.  If, for some reason, DCU feels the necessity to  raise
more  profits  or  further improve its credit ratio it should examine why more
members do not do more of their banking with DCU.  Why doesn't  DCU  eliminate
fees  on  all  VISA cards so that they will attract more card holders who will
provide more income via interest payments and  transaction  fees?   Why  don't
more  members  apply  to  DCU  when  they need a loan?  Why does DCU benchmark
itself against other banks rather than other credit unions?

                                                                Page 2


     I was also very disappointed that the board decided to redact  (for  five
months)  the  relationship  banking  discussion  from the minutes of the April
board meeting.  This is OUR credit union.  You were elected  to  represent  us
and  to serve us.  Unless there is a compelling legal or privacy consideration
all board discussions should be immediately made available to the members that
you represent.

     I voted for you to represent me on the DCU board.  As  part  of  this,  I
have a responsibility to communicate my opinions to you so that you can better
represent my interests.  I will try to state them as directly  and  succinctly
as possible.

     1.  PLEASE REPEAL THE CONCEPT OF "RELATIONSHIP BANKING".  It has no place
         in  a  credit  union  whose  aim  should  be to effectively serve all
         members.

     2.  DON'T FORGET THE MESSAGES CLEARLY STATED BY  THE  MEMBERSHIP  AT  THE
         "SPECIAL  MEETING".  The membership overwhelmingly said that they did
         not want fees imposed on share draft accounts.

     3.  DON'T FORGET WHY WE ELECTED YOU TO REPRESENT US.  Four of you ran  on
         a  commitment  to  "hold the line on fees".  In my opinion, the board
         members who voted to  approve  the  "relationship  banking"  directly
         violated this pledge.

     4.  HELP US  AVOID  ANOTHER  "SPECIAL  MEETING".   Special  meetings  are
         divisive  and  expensive.   Furthermore,  they allow a few members to
         impose their decisions on the rest of the  membership.   However,  if
         "relationship  banking"  is  implemented  as  you  have  planned, the
         membership will be forced to call another "special meeting" to repeal
         this concept and (possibly) remove certain members of the board.

     5.  LOOK  FOR  ALTERNATIVES.   Find   out   why   there   are   so   many
         "non-relationship"  members.   Figure  out  what  services DCU should
         offer that would encourage current members to use DCU more and  other
         banks less.  Figure out how to attract more members.

     6.  BE OPEN WITH US.  Don't hide information that we have a right to know
         by redacting sections of the minutes of board meetings.

     7.  DON'T FORGET WHO WE ARE COMPETING AGAINST.  Benchmark interest rates,
         fees,  benefits,  etc  against  other  credit unions ...  not against
         commercial banks.  If DCU can be "best in class" against other credit
         unions you won't have to worry about losing business to banks.

     8.  DON'T FORGET WHO IS IN CHARGE.  In short, it's the members.  We elect
         you  to  represent  our  interests.   You have the responsibility for
         making policy decisions and  setting  the  future  direction  of  our
         credit  union AFTER LISTENING TO US.  Let the President and his staff
         manage the credit union - that's their job.   However,  don't  forget
         that  they  report  to  you  and the president should come to you for
         policy decisions.  If he has ideas and suggestions for policy changes
         listen  to them and consider them carefully.  After all, he was hired
         as a professional with experience in running credit unions.  However,
         never  forget  that  YOU  have  the  responsibility  of  setting  the

                                                                Page 3


         direction and it is his job to implement your decisions.  If he feels
         that  he  can't  do  this or if you do not feel that he is able to do
         this, you need to implement a change of presidents.

Thank you for your time and consideration.  If you want further input  on  any
of these ideas feel free to contact me.

                                        Gary Hicks

re: .142

That is a very good letter and does something that most people's letters didn't;
It praises them for the good things they have done.

One correction.  It is the capital ratio, not credit ratio that has been
improved.

Bob

    
     Why do you folks waste your time with writing letters?
    
     The majority of the Board, that voted for fees, have made up their
    mind. As far as they're concerned, it's finished, kaput, adios.
    
     Fees will be instituted at the DCU, period.
    
     A letter from every single member of this Credit Union will not change 
    the mindset of these directors. And that's so painfully obvious.

     Paul and Phil have responded. Lisa has gone to the trouble
    of setting up a live communication, but the only responses I've 
    seen/heard is a "I'll talk, but it won't change anything."

     Has anybody heard from the rest any of the other Board members?

     
     As one director has already said in this notesfile, 
     
     THIS IS A MAJOR POLICY CHANGE IN THE DIRECTION OF 
    HOW THIS CREDIT UNION IS RUN. 
     
     The DCU is gonna roll them bones, and they're betting that apathy
    will reign amongst the membership. Oh, they might lose some
    members, but they don't care. 
    
     Don't you folks get it? The directors, and the president that 
    convinced them, that voted for this policy chage just don't care
    how we feel about fees, and they sure as hell aren't going to 
    change their minds due to letters.
     
     
      Steve Gaulke
    

    
    Re: .144
    
    > Don't you folks get it? The directors, and the president that 
    > convinced them, that voted for this policy chage just don't care
    > how we feel about fees, and they sure as hell aren't going to 
    > change their minds due to letters.
    
    Precisely, but I wouldn't bet that we can't change it.  If holding
    their feet to the fire won't do it, then they can always be
    replaced.  The arrogance is such that I will gladly support changing
    BoD members and presidents until we find ones who give the members
    what we want: a credit union.
    
    Steve
    

>>>
>>>  even if you might have borrowed $40,000,000
>>>

  Only the ex-president of the DCU could get this kind of loan ;-.]


  It's becoming obvious that they are right... We are just going to sit
here and argue while Rome Burns...

    This is two branch managers who have churned out virtually the
    same lines.  It is very clear that the President has painted just
    the right picture when it comes to how to sell this package to
    the branches and the members.
    
    It is very evident that it is full of inaccuracy.  Like the people
    who rejected fees before now accept them.  If he's referring to
    Lisa and Tanya, it may be or it may not be.  They certainly haven't
    changed Paul K or Phil's mind.  Why can't we give away services as
    we have been doing, considering that we made record profits doing
    just that in times of declining savings (although that WILL actually
    help create more profit!)
    
    The whole thing is perverse.
    
    Stuart

I called and complained when I got my letter, and was told they are trying
to encourage people to make the DCU their primary financial institution to
which I asked what incentive they were giving me so that I would do that. 
From my perspective, they want me to put more money in there so they have
it, but I don't get anything (like a better interest rate on my savings or
a better rate on my mortgage).  And because I'm one of those people whose
mortgage was not sold by the DCU, if I refinance, I am no longer a 
relationship member, so I get penalized for paying them 9.75% interest on
my mortgate these last 7 years.

The person I talked to asked who my primary bank was and when I said I
did most of my banking at BayBank, she started to quote me their fees. Only
problem was DCU compared to the wrong BayBank program.  They looked at the
BayPlus accounts which require $10k to have no fees and get slightly higher
interest rates (I used to have one of those, so I know how they work) when
you can get a regular no-fee interest bearing checking with companion savings
and just need to maintain the minimum (which, I admit at $1500 is a bit steep,
but not much more than the $1000 I have to keep in my checking at DCU to get
interest) to waive fees and get interest. And I can use my BayBank card 
practically anywhere, so banking is actually easy and convenient.  And I
don't get nickeled-and-dimed to death.  I actually keep most of my money in
a few mutual funds, so even BayBank doesn't have all of it, but they don't
seem to keep doing things to force me to have all my money there. 

And they even make it easy for me to have multiple accounts as that's how 
I like to do my budgeting.  With DCU's new changes, I guess I'm now one of
those 'abusers' as I have separate accounts for separate functions where I
have money taken out of my check every week, and when the account reaches
a certain amount, I move the money somewhere else.  But I figure that's what
they're there for, and since they do get to make a nice profit on my mortgage
as well as have some of my business, they should be happy with that.

One of the changes they have made is to change the RSVP account from needing
a $100 minimum to needing a $1000 minimum -- that's a factor of 10, but they
don't think I have a right to complain!

I've made up my mind after this that, since I'd already decided to refinance
that mortgage, once that's done, I'm moving my money elsewhere.  But I'm 
also planning to leave my savings open just so I can still vote to throw out
the current BOD who seem to think that I don't know what works best for my
own financial situation, and it's up to them to show me the error of my
ways. Yeah, right.

    
    I got the same response from a teller I went to...  as I was closing
    out my final DCU accounts.
    
    I've been waiting, keeping my $5 for voting privs and a VISA, and hoping 
    to put all the money I took out prior to the last election back.
    
    After a somewhat sarcastic response to my request to close we engaged
    in some short, polite banter.  The basic feeling I got is that 
    
         They *want* to be my bank.  
    
    Even though I don't want one, the person made it clear that DCU wanted 
    to be the bank for all my needs and as such they needed to do this.
    
    I said I didn't need a bank - I had one.  And the reason I'll take my
    other bank over DCU is that they charge the same fees, but give me far 
    superior service.  When DCU can give me everything my current bank does, 
    maybe I'll make them my bank.  Personally I don't see it happening.  As 
    their services are extremely limited, about all they can be for me is a 
    credit union - which they don't want to be.
    
    Fine.  I'm out.  I don't see the tide changing anymore.
    
    I was also reminded that "nothing in life is free forever," although I
    failed to grasp the pertinence of that remark.  I get the sense that
    employees are agitated and have strong feelings against those who
    are promoting no fees/easy loans/less flash or are simply unsatisfied.  
    Dunno why there is such contention towards customers - kind of weird, 
    probably easy to speculate why, but I won't.
    
    You know the sad thing is, certain people here won't ever lose anything.  
    The feds will take care of everything if a failure happened.  They'll 
    even pay off the depositors.  But like Dave Garrod brought up, when the 
    DCU employee's job is gone, that's that (what's the possibility - I 
    dunno, but it seems like there are a lot of people dissatisfied).  You'd 
    think they'd side with satisfying the customers more than anyone else.  
    Again, I fail to understand some feelings.
    
    At one time, DCU had all my savings, had my direct deposits, gave me
    2 car loans (paid off), and had a VISA issued to me.  But guess that
    wasn't worth trying to keep.
    
    - Sean

    
    Re: .150
    
    I'd wager that DCU management has convinced employees that the
    DCU and their jobs will be on the line without becoming more like
    a bank.  My guess is that is likley the cause of the harsh feelings.
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    
    This is the letter I sent off this AM to the BOD (since we're all
    sharing ideas and memos)...
    
    
    
    John
    
    
    

To the BOD:


	It's taken me a while to actually think about exactly what I want to
	say on the latest 'hot button' regarding implementation of fees or 
	what is being referred to as a "relationship" with the credit union
	we all belong to.   Mostly I have done a lot of reading of varying
	opinions in the notesfile and thought about my own "banking" needs.
	I didn't want to just write a note based purely on the "feeling" of
	the moment and because "everyone else was doing it".  I wanted to 
	write something that I took some time to think about and something
	that had a suggestion that could appease both sides of the issue.

	I have been a member of the credit union for most of my time at
	DIGITAL (6+ years), although I cannot remember the exact date I joined.
	In that time the credit union has met my needs, mostly because it is
	very convenient to me and the fact that I can get free checking.
	My wife worked for Fleet for a while and we had a checking account 
	there when she did, but since their fee structure was so unreasonable
	I knew once she left that DCU would get all of my business.  Currently
	DCU has most of my business, I have received and paid off a personal
	loan, I have a DCU Credit Card, I refinanced my Caravan during a
	promotion a year or so ago to get a lower rate and have the amount
	of the loan taken directly from my check, I have my savings and
	checking account at the DCU.  The only thing missing is my mortgage,
	but because my house is not worth as much as my current mortgage I
	have not even attempted to refinance that, mostly because I don't
	believe that I would get the refinancing.  Once my car loan value goes
	below $3500 I will no longer have a relationship with the DCU, although
	I will avoid the checking fees since I do have more than $500 a month
	in direct deposit.  Does this sound about right to you and your belief
	of having a relationship with the credit union?   Gee what more can I
	do?  Take out another loan so that I keep a relationship?   I can hardly
	afford to take out another loan if I ever have a chance of buying down
	the price of my mortgage so that I can sell my current house and not
	lose too much money.   Besides, another loan could put me past the 
	28%/35% "magic numbers" and I'd still have at least $3499 to pay of
	on my car loan!   I think the rules of having a relationship are a 
	bit too strict given the fact that information in the notesfile from
	board members and DCU officials leads me to believe that the people 
	that are "abusing" (your words, not mine) the credit union are those
	that multiple sub accounts that cost the credit union some money.
	Although compared to the profit made last year, it's not that much
	now is it?  The other number that I saw was that 67% of the membership 
	doesn't have a relationship, is that what was told to you all before 
	you voted on this important issue?  Can you believe 67% of the people
	will be happy to have to pay fees to a credit union that is making
	a profit?  Don't you think that some will walk?  Would that mean higher
	fees since now the credit union could possibly be *losing* money?
	Would the board have any control over how those new fees would be
	implemented or is it the case that now that fees are allowed it is up
	to management to figure how best to implement them?  That means that
	any day the rules could be changed so that 100% of the membership
	is not in relationship with the credit union.

	I believe that since there is a lot of contention on this issue of
	new fees, that perhaps the board should reconsider.  But instead of
	just writing off the idea, I do have a suggestion.  Since elections
	are coming up and there will be a mass mailing to every member of the
	credit union to vote for some new directors, how about adding to the
	ballot a question regarding the implementation of fees.  This way both
	the board and DCU management can either prove or disprove the notion
	that fees will be acceptable to a majority of credit union members.
	After all, how best to get the feeling of all members than to ask them?
	A special meeting is something I don't want to see happen again, but 
	as I am sure you are all aware that there is a rumbling in the notesfile
	that perhaps it may be necessary.  Perhaps a vote could be taken at an
	upcoming board meeting to delay the fees upon the results of such a
	vote.  I truly believe that this type of solution could be amenable 
	to both sides of this great debate.  Perhaps, along with the ballot
	question DCU management could write up a paragraph or two on why fees
	should be implemented and also allow someone from the opposing view-
	point write a paragraph or two on why we don't need fees.  I would
	discourage anyone from the board from having input to either statement
	since it could sway people who are not involved in the notesfile.

	Somehow I don't expect much to come of this, but since you all
	"campaigned" to have better communications and to listen to the 
	membership and try and better the credit union, this action could
	show some willingness to deal with this issue rather than just 
	sweeping it under the rug and saying "this is how it's going to be".
	As for the communications piece I have only seen/heard of 4 directors
	that have tried to communicate with the notesfile readers.  Remember
	well that although there appear to be only a few people who write in
	the notesfile there are probably many people who actually read the 
	notesfile and draw their opinions from it.  I myself will occasionally
	write a note, but mostly I read due to the fact that I don't have the
	DIGITAL time in order to be very active.

	Please just don't take this suggestion and throw it in the mail folder
	called "wastebasket", think about it and take some action before the
	"small group" of notesfilers has to go down the once beaten path of
	special meeting once again.


	Respectfully,



	John A. Ferlan
                                                     
    

From:	SPECXN::WITHERS "Bob Withers  19-Dec-1993 1429" 19-DEC-1993 14:32:47.06
To:	@DCU-BOARD ! MR. COCKBURN VIA US MAIL
CC:	WITHERS
Subj:	I'm reducing my DCU balance to $5.00 in opposition the fee structure


                                        Robert C. Withers
                                        4520 Wileys Rd.
                                        Peyton, Co. 80831
                                        719.592.5108 (work)

                                        December 19th, 1993

Board of Directors	(via EMail)
President		(via US Mail)
Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union
141 Parker Street, PK05
P.O. Box 130
Maynard, Ma. 01754

Dear Directors, Mr. President:

This is my second letter to you opposing the new Fee Structure to
be imposed on the membership.

To date, I have consolidated my savings accounts and I have
stopped my automatic payroll deductions to my DCU accounts in
protest of the new fee structure.  On January 3rd, I will reduce
my balance in my DCU accounts to the minimum needed to cover
outstanding checks and to maintain my membership.

In my last letter to you, I demanded that you rescind the fee
structure and return the Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union
to its true status as a cooperative.  Mssrs. Gransewicz and
Kinzleman have contacted me regarding their opposition to the fee
structure.  I will support their continuing efforts.

Mr. President and other board members; you have chosen to not
contact me and as such, I feel you are no longer worthy to
represent me in the DCU's governance.  Therefore, I will actively
work for your removal and replacement through either the election
process or the Special Meeting mechanism.  Two years ago, at the
last special meeting, the message was loud and clear, "No Fees."
You have abrogated the trust the members placed in you and proved
yourselves disingenuous.

Gusseting the fee structure in the guide of "Relationship
Banking" is deceitful for two reasons: First, you are giving free
banking to those who give you the most money.  In other words,
you are charging a premium in required business to get
prerogatives that were available to all the members before the
change.  The hidden message is, "Give us more money or we'll
charge you fees to do business with us."

Secondly, "Relationship Banking" is directly contrary to the
cooperative nature of a credit union.  A Union is an environment
where everyone contributes to the best of their ability.
Everyone then benefits from the contributions of the whole -- in
the case of a Credit Union, all depositors work for the benefit
of those who borrow or chose to save.  With the new fee
structure, you have created a stratum where some people are more
equal than others, in the words of George Orwell.

I find it unconscionable that the DCU would try to extort money
from its members, either in the form of additional deposits or
through fees, at a time of record profitability.  I find it
further onerous that the DCU remains uncompetitive in deposit and
loan rates, as well as minimums for earning interest.

As I said, I will maintain my membership to work for the removal
of fees and the fee structure's supporters.  When this is
accomplished, I will return some of my business to the DCU.



                                        Sincerely,


                                        Bob Withers
                                        Member-owner since 1983

Good man!

    	I don't necessarily write letters, but have been quietly
    considering my other financial options since the fees were
    announced.  I am planning to move the bulk of my money out
    of DCU after the first of the year.  I would have taken the 
    lazy path of least resistance without the shock of the new
    fee structure (I won't be paying fees, but was mightily
    offended).  It has taken me this long to decide where to move
    my money to, and I figure that there are plenty of other lazy
    (or careful) people doing the very same thing.  It's not
    always necessary to fight; switching is just as satisfying.
    
    Dave Eklund
    

I just had the opportunity to speak with Tanya Dawkins personally here
in CXO (She was here doing an audit ... glub!).  It was certainly
enlightening to see what has occured, through her eyes.   

We discussed the idea that the philosophy of a CU should exclude fees for
basic services ...  

She explained that her concept of holding the line on fees was that in
approving a fee structure that as few people as possible should be impacted by 
fees, while at the same time trying to reduce the generally more costly 
low balance accounts. We talked briefly about whether there might be other
or better ways to do this ...

Of concern to her was the expense ratios ...  DCU, having far more branches
than the typical credit union (average 3), had a far higher salary cost,
and therefore far more susceptible than the typical CU to changes in assets
and the impact of changes in interest rate spreads.

We also discussed competition and she seemed to agree that in some products
DCU was probably not competetive, and we also discussed who is the
competition ... The reason that the Banks, like BayBank are considered
the competition rather than other CUs is because banks are exactly who 
members are comparing them to.

Also of interest to me, we discussed whether DCU could do some form of
limited foreign exchange ... I had mentioned this in a letter to the board.
With the globalization of the company, the ability of members to move
money a little more easily between countries would be useful ... she
agreed to look into this.

Frankly, I was impressed at her openness in the way she discussed some of
these things.  Although I had no dealings with the old board, from all
the reports of the old board, and this board, I can see that there is
absolutely no comparison.  I'm certain that I didn't change her mind on
the need for fees, but on the other hand, it was evident that she was
listening.

Bottom line on where I stand on the matter of fees is that on a philosophical
basis, I disapprove still of fees for basic services.  That said, it remains
to be seen what actually constitutes basic services, and herein may be a
way to constructively redefine this whole mess.  Also, I think that we do
have to consider that with a large branch network, DCU is quite outstanding
in the services that it does provide and that we are making record profits
is evidence of good management.  On the other hand, that we do have such a
large branch network could also be a big liability.

I had considered moving my account ... at the moment, it would not be
too practical ... and that is what brought about this meeting with Tanya,
because I did let the board know of my displeasure.  Now, even if it
were practical to move, I don't think I would.  While I may not agree
with Tanya or other board members on some items, I am at least a little
more optimistic that things will get better, and that when the overall
balances and ratios of DCU are closer to norms and so on that some of
the changes that we as members would prefer to see may be possible.

Don't give up on DCU ... The more who pull out of DCU, the longer it will
take to make DCU our credit union.

Stuart

>The reason that the Banks, like BayBank are considered
>the competition rather than other CUs is because banks are exactly who 
>members are comparing them to.

I think this is a reasonable thing to do. If members decide to shop
around for financial products and services, where are they likely to
look? Most members probably do not have the option of being able to
join another CU.

-Jeff

re: .161

>>The reason that the Banks, like BayBank are considered
>>the competition rather than other CUs is because banks are exactly who 
>>members are comparing them to.

>I think this is a reasonable thing to do. If members decide to shop
>around for financial products and services, where are they likely to
>look? Most members probably do not have the option of being able to
>join another CU.

I disagree here.  I think people who compare DCU to banks do so for either of
two reasons:

1)  They don't know what it is like to belong to a real credit union.

2)  They do know what it is like to belong to a real credit union and consider
DCU to be a failure if it can't do better than the banks.

I belong to two other credit unions and know how badly DCU is failing when I
compare it to other credit unions.

DCU comparing itself to banks is like a pole vaulter setting the bar at 5'.
It's no challenge, and a successful jump proves nothing.  Unfortunately, DCU
is failing to even make this 5' jump.

Bob

    Bob,
    
    I would therefore recommend that you and any other members belonging
    to other CUs provide DCU with the CU ocmparison.
    
    Also, how many DCU members *are* able to switch to other CUs ?  If
    that number is only a small portion of the DCU membership, then
    DCU considering the banks as their *direct* competition, and attempting
    to be competetive with banks, at least for now, is not an unreasonable
    thing to do.
    
    Consider that DCU has some 20 branches ... the average number for a 
    CU is approximately 3.  Operating a branch costs big $.  (I know
    that you personally, along with a lot of other DCU members don't
    have a convenient branch, so to you is no different from a 3 branch CU)
    So, already, in providing such a large branch network, DCU is
    providing services way above and beyond the typical CU (and a lot
    of banks too!!!!)  Were DCU to shrink its branch network to half,
    say, then its profits would be significantly higher.  And we
    therefore pay for that branch network ...
    
    Like another note said, there appears to have been a lot of 
    incomplete analysis done in a lot of areas, or at least the details
    of that analysis have not been let out.  It would be nice to see
    more of that analysis, and I have let Lisa deMauro Ross know
    that.
    
    Stuart
    
    
    
    

    
    Re: .160
    
    > She explained that her concept of holding the line on fees was that in
    > approving a fee structure that as few people as possible should be
    > impacted by fees ... 
    
    Then why have them?  What *is* the real agenda?
    
    > while at the same time trying to reduce the generally more costly 
    > low balance accounts.  
    
    The DCU is making money hand over fist right now.  We should NOT
    be scrutinizing every last detail of DCU operations for wherever
    we can squeeze yet another penny of profit.  
    
    The POINT which it seems Tanya STILL does not get is a credit union
    is about service to its members.  Fee-free accounts are ONE OF THOSE
    SERVICES.  Profit is NOT its raison d'etre.  I DON'T GO TO A CREDIT
    UNION FOR ITS PROFITABILITY.  I GO TO IT FOR ITS SERVICE.  Saying
    that the credit union must be profitable IS NOT THE SAME AS SAYING
    that profitability is what it is about.  Tanya and others seem to be
    saying that profitability is what they are about.
    
    Those who want an organization that is about maximizing profit should
    be going to a bank.
    
    IT ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDS ME THAT PEOPLE DON'T GET THESE DISTINCTIONS.
    
    Steve
    

    Piggybacking on what .164 said (because I agree): if OUR CU with it's
    big branch network is so expensive to run, and we are running it now
    WITHOUT any fees and still making record profits - I don't see what the
    problem is that they're trying to solve. If DCU were in trouble or even
    on the verge of just being shaky, then I'd have to agree that something
    ought to be done. However, DCU is not in trouble or even beginning to
    start to look shaky. So what Chuck and most of the board is trying to
    fix something that isn't broken. And, more importantly, doing it in a
    way that was resoundingly renounced only two years ago!

Stuart,

>    I would therefore recommend that you and any other members belonging
>    to other CUs provide DCU with the CU ocmparison.

To the best of my knowledge, every time I have complained about a DCU practice,
I have noted a better practice at a credit union of which I am a member.  This
includes credit card rates/policies, auto loans, fees, etc.

It's interesting about the average CU having 3 branches.  The two other CU's I
belong to have more than the average number of branches.  One has 6 branches,
that I can think of off the top of my head, in the Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex.
This is probably equal to or greater than the DCU coverage in the GMA.  The
other has about 10 branches covering the Eastern half of Texas (I'm not sure
if there are any branches in the Western half) which is probably equal in size
to the area from Maine to Maryland for DCU.  None of these have have the DCU
advantages of Digital provided space and ATMs, yet they still have better rates
and terms.

Bob

The number of branches of the "average" credit union is
only of interest if DEFCU is an "average" credit union.  DEFCU
is not an average credit union; it is considerably larger
than average.  If you want a number that has at least some
semblance of reasonability in terms of comparison, find
out the average number of shareholders per branch office
for the average credit union.  Even better, compare DEFCU
with other credit unions the same size.

It would be better if Tanya never mentioned the "3 branches
for an average credit union", although the problem may
have simply been a communication issue.  This number is
not only meaningless as far as DEFCU goes, it is also
misleading.

I'm glad that Tanya is an open communicator.  Fortunately for
us, I expect there are a lot of others who will be willing to
serve on the board who will not only exhibit open communication,
but will also stick to campaign pledges not to implement a fee
structure unreasonably.

Collis

    I still fail to understand why folks like Bob stick with DCU when there
    are better alternatives.  I guess I'm not as patient as they are.
    
    Bob, I looked around Austin, TX for an institution as good as or better
    than DCU.  I couldn't find one.  The CUs I could join here in MA do not
    offer the convenient branches.  The CU I am still involved with due to
    family ties gets very little of my real business due to them being so
    far away.  Although the banks in the area are more accesible for my
    wife than DCU is, I still haven't found any further good reason to move
    my money.

    I find it interesting that most of the folks screaming the loudest
    against the fees are those that are not directly impacted by them.

    
    Re: .171
    
    > I find it interesting that most of the folks screaming the
    > loudest against the fees are those that are not directly
    > impacted by them.
    
    So what's your point?  That I should not care as long as it
    isn't me?  That's a right neighborly attitude isn't it.
    
    Steve
    

	The others have already left! ;-)

	We're just afraid that as soon as DCU notices, they'll have to
charge us instead.

			--Doug who is seriously considering looking for
			       another place to put his money when the fees
			       go into effect.

    I thought I was a relationship member.  Certainly not an upscale
    member.
    
    I found another twist to the fees and income.  Each one of my children
    recieved a nice letter from DCU explaining that now they won't recieve
    interest for their savings accounts!
    They are not upscale members either.  But if DCU doesn't want the
    combined $2000 they hold, another back will gladly take it and pay 
    interest.
    
    what next?
    
    ed--a down-scale member.

    Ed,
    
    Did the memo say why they wouldn't be collecting interest?
    
    Just curious.
    
    P@

I was wondering the same thing.  Is it based on age?  balance?  maybe the fact
that they are sub-accounts?

    they don't collect interest as the accoun t was converted from the RSVP
    [100 min] to a money market [1000 min]  thanks for the choice, DCU.
    I didn't ask for the conversion.
    
    this story has a happy? ending.
    
    I talked with 1st dcu interface who told me to withdraw my money
    period. [maybe the best advice]
    
    her supervisor told me to send them a letter [can't be done by phone]
    to put money from money market account to reg savings.[already in
    exsistance]
    
    Phil helped out, finally they agreed in a later call to xfer via phone.
    
    
    note, the difference between reg savings and money market is .01%
    or in my case 70 cents per year.   29 cents already spent telling me
    it.  a lot of customer good will down the tubes.
    
    I was ready to tell them to cut the checks, that 2.86% money market
    was only an allusion of competativeness.
    
    I really have to wonder about the soundness of decisions that are spent
    on 70cents a year. [-29cents mailing] [- time of reps to restructure
    accounts.]
    
    
    yes, they should have money market accounts.  No, they shouldn't change
    the rules for accounts.  DCU were the ones years back who wanted me
    to put the funds into RSVP accounts.  they should have grandfathered
    the kids in?  or told me that as of xx, the account was a money market
    account drawing no interest.  I have the option of adding money or
    getting it put back into reg savings.  for 70cents a year, I would not
    think any difference.
    
    oh well, the problems dealing with a bank.
    ed
    

    Sounds like mountains are being made out of a molehill.  The changes to
    the RSVP account were announced quite some time ago.  I'm kind of
    surprised that DCU sent a letter to flag you so you could either
    increase the minimum balance or move the balance to an interest bearing
    account.

    Your probably right Macneal.  but who made the mountain?
    the difference in rates between the new money market account and reg
    savings is .01%  on the account it works out to 70cents a year.
    I was arm twisted years ago into converting the reg savings for the
    kids into RSVP accounts.  Somehow in all the mailings I missed the
    fact that the accounts would now draw no interest.  I'm sorry.
    I do find it incrediable that DCU's first line was to tell me to
    withdraw the money from DCU.  
    
    Somehow, I'd would have expected *someone*, anyone at DCU to annalize
    what this change would mean to those *kids* who had RSVP accounts, and
    how to handle it.  To simply send a letter to a 10 year old telling him
    he will no longer earn interest seems rather impersonal and unplanned.
    but I guess its just me.
    
    I also find it incredable that we are discussing .01% interest on a 10 
    year's savings account.  guess he should go upscale.
    ed
    

  I think the first person was right...

  Go elsewhere.  There are a LOT of banks that want to encourage young people
to learn about money and interest.  When I was a kid some of the banks offered
$1 just to open an account of $5 and they paid interest.  I remember getting
the passbook updated each month to show the interest.

    
    I've been out quite a bit lately so sorry for the late response to
    this posting.
    
    
>  <<< Note 694.160 by CSC32::S_BROOK "There and back to see how far it is" >>>

>She explained that her concept of holding the line on fees was that in
>approving a fee structure that as few people as possible should be impacted by 
>fees, while at the same time trying to reduce the generally more costly 
>low balance accounts. We talked briefly about whether there might be other
>or better ways to do this ...

    "as few people as possible should be impacted"???  How about EVERY
    MEMBER being impacted?  It's just that some have enough money to NOT be
    impacted.  And when these fees were proposed at our Strategic Planning
    session,  ***I DID PROPOSE ALTERNATIVES***  If DCU had problems with
    low balance accounts then find out why and address the problem. 
    It certainly seemed to me that the decision had already been made to
    have fees.  No amount of fact or alternatives mattered.
    
>Of concern to her was the expense ratios ...  DCU, having far more branches
>than the typical credit union (average 3), had a far higher salary cost,
>and therefore far more susceptible than the typical CU to changes in assets
>and the impact of changes in interest rate spreads.
    
    Branches on large sites is exactly why DCU is so successful.  Without
    on site branches, we would be a much smaller credit union IMO and would
    thus be able to offer fewer services (and larger loans).  You cannot
    state the above and not recognize that the branches are a very large
    net positive for DCU, or they never would have opened them.  Believe
    me, this analysis was done and continues to be done.  It's just the 
    method of calculating "profitability" has changed.  

>We also discussed competition and she seemed to agree that in some products
>DCU was probably not competetive, and we also discussed who is the
>competition ... The reason that the Banks, like BayBank are considered
>the competition rather than other CUs is because banks are exactly who 
>members are comparing them to.

    The point is that if DCU can at least match credit unions then they 
    will be ahead of banks.  I mean after all, DCU IS a credit union,
    isn't it?  Bottom line, be true to your roots.  Constant evaluation
    against large banks is exactly why we start looking like a large bank,
    with large bank policies.  Is this what the membership wants?
    
>Bottom line on where I stand on the matter of fees is that on a philosophical
>basis, I disapprove still of fees for basic services.  That said, it remains
>to be seen what actually constitutes basic services, and herein may be a
>way to constructively redefine this whole mess.  Also, I think that we do
>have to consider that with a large branch network, DCU is quite outstanding
>in the services that it does provide and that we are making record profits
>is evidence of good management.  On the other hand, that we do have such a
>large branch network could also be a big liability.

    IMO, in a matter of time, you will see more and more fees on more and
    more services.  This is NOT stated from my position as a Director.  It
    is stated from my experiences with other things, including the DCU
    credit card, checking, etc.  We're a credit union, not a bank.  If
    we're very profitable, and doing well, fees are unwarranted and
    counter-productive IMO.
    
>more optimistic that things will get better, and that when the overall
>balances and ratios of DCU are closer to norms and so on that some of
>the changes that we as members would prefer to see may be possible.
    
    Stuart, please explain this further.  What are the norms we must reach? 
    What are the changes we may then get?

>    Other than the $1 minimum, you can do this with DCU.  The problem was
>    the type of account chosen for the children's savings -- a money market
>    account which has a high minimum balance for getting interest.  A
>    normal share account requires only $5 minimum to earn interest.
    
    I disagree.  I think the problem was that DCU changed the minimum on
    the account.  A $100 minimum was a fine idea for my kids' accounts. 
    But now that there is a $1000 minimum, it is not.  Why did they change
    this?  Yes, I can move my kids money from the .10 to the .1 and change
    my weekly payrole deductions to go to the .1 instead of the .10, but I
    really don't appreciate the change and the hassle.

    Phil, please ... I was reporting on a conversation ... albeit one where
    I couldn't sway Tanya, but also enlightened me at least in a few areas
    that I think were pertinent as to why fees came about.  Not that I
    necessarily agree with them all ...
    
    I agree that it seems likely that a certain group of directors had
    their mind well and truly made up before the fateful meeting and that
    they weren't going to be swayed.  Implementing fees was likely to have
    an immediate effect on banking habits ... other approaches may take
    time.  If you look at the situation with blinkers on, then the fee
    approach makes good sense.  The problem is convincing people to take
    the blinkers off and look at the whole picture.  I think they were
    looking at what they perceived as fact, just as you.  You just looked,
    and considered important, a far bigger set.
    
    As to branch sites ... of course the number of branches has made DCU
    successful, but I also understand that a large number of branches can
    also represent a large risk exposure in terms of expense especially if 
    the number of Digital employees continues to be dramatically cut.  Of
    course this involves crystal ball gazing, and as we both know, the risk 
    can be cut by other means ... the trouble is in a conservative environment, 
    these means also look like they could potentially increase the risk 
    exposure.  Careful analysis could identify that.  
    
    It's not so much the profitability measurement that's changed, I think, 
    but rather the assessment of risk exposure.  In the world today, we all
    look a lot more towards the pessimistic approaches.  Most companies are
    doing it ... Digital shows it now by the left hand laying off while the
    right hand hires.  Rather than measure the risk exposure of keeping
    people on board and transferring them to new jobs, they hire
    specifically for the job, while laying off people who might not be
    able to do the new job.  It's easier ... but it too conveys risks ...
    ones that are easier to measure.
    
    You have no argument from me on the matter of DCU being a CU and not
    being a bank ... and I expressed that, I hope, clearly to Tanya.  At
    the same time, you do have to compare yourself with comparable
    business, and banks ARE a comparable business.  Some of what we expect
    of DCU is very much what we expect of a bank, and may be beyond the
    service of a CU ... (the branch network for example), so in some areas
    comparison against banks is  a good thing, but in others, such
    comparisons produce the results we note so well ... Obviously when DCU
    compares itself to the competition, it should be looking at a broad
    based picture of credit unions and banks.
    
    It is quite possible that fees may snowball, but on the other hand,
    fees are in fashion to reduce risk exposure. The tide may turn, but it
    is clear that the current board are conservative enough to follow
    the fashion, rather than liberal (not political cons./lib!) enough to
    lead the fashion away from fees.  I certainly agree that fees are
    counterproductive and certainly unwarranted on many services.
    
    Norms ... let me rephrase that as management percieved norms ... viz
    the capital ratio for one ... but also the hidden risk exposure.  As
    to the benefits ... hmmmm ... let's speculate on things like return
    of excess profits in dividends (although I see a sense of Robin Hood
    here!), maybe reduced fees, better savings and loan rates as that
    ever present risk exposure looks better protected.
    
    Tanya, for example is an auditor, whose job is essentially identifying
    and eliminating risk exposure.  The reduction of risk exposure is why
    we are working so hard at cost cutting in Digital and no doubt at DCU.
    Reducing Risk exposure boils down to be the driving force of the 90's.
    
    Reminds me of the bus company who, when faced with rising costs, raised
    fares, and as a result lost ridership.  To cover the increased Risk
    Exposure, felt compelled to raise fares again, but lost more riders.
    At this point they conduct surveys of the people who still ride the
    busses and cut routes to reduce Risk Exposure again.  Now the busses
    don't go where they want all the time, and don't run as often so 
    become too inconvenient, so the ridership falls again, fares rise
    again and so it continues until the bus company folds.
    
    Instead of surveying the people who DIDN'T ride the bus and find out
    how they could get more ridership, they surveyed the existing riders
    with the wrong questions and produced the wrong results.  This is
    a true story, rather simplified ... but the point is clear.  Surveying
    people who didn't ride the bus could increase the risk exposure.  It
    is easier to work with what you have than what you might have.
    
    I don't think that DCU is in anything like the situation of this bus
    company ... but I'm sure that when it comes down to it, Risk Exposure
    is the driving force behind these moves.
    
    Stuart
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Fortunate

    
    Stuart, I realize you were reporting on a conversation.  I was
    responding to Tanya's comments and statements.
    
    My point is that the number of branches and the cost structure of DCU
    *WAS NEVER A CONSIDERATION AND DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THE FEES*.  This
    "justification" was an after-the-fact justification.  Last year I pushed
    for a reduction of DCU expense ratio since we were reducing the number
    of branches.  I cannot say that I have seen much, if any, savings due to
    branch closings.  The size of the DCU branch system has dropped by
    about 33%.  Branches are very easily and quickly closed as Digital
    reconfigures their sites.  There is little, if any, exposure to DCU due
    to its branches and Digital's downsizing since DCU owns NO facilities
    other than their headquarters building.
    
    The purpose of the fees was to drive members to do their banking with
    DCU, ie. to maximize the profit per member or household.  The question
    all members need to ask themselves is, do you want to be driven to do
    business with DCU, or do you want DCU to be your automatic first
    choice, *by choice*.
    
    I realize DCU offers many of the same services and products as banks,
    but the stated purpose of a bank is to make money and pay its
    shareholders a return on their investment.  I believe DCU's goal needs
    to be to return its excess profits to the membership while maintaining
    itself as an ongoing cooperative.  It should NOT be to maximize
    profits IMO, especially when we are already making money hand-over-fist.
    Right now I see far too much taking and far too little return to the
    membership.
    
    Both of us have witnessed to ever increasing capital ratio goal.  When
    do you think this goal will stop increasing and this excess profit will
    be returned to the membership?  The capital ratio cannot be the primary
    driving force behind an institution.  If our assets continue to drop
    while we make money and keep it, the ratio will look great.  But where
    will that continued trend lead the credit union?  Theoretically, we
    could have a 100% capital ratio.  $20 million is equity, $20 million is
    assets.
    

    Perhaps this is off the subject, but the last few notes
    have brought a few ideas together for me that I'ld like
    to discuss.

    I'm NOT a relationship member.  I'm just a guy who appreciates
    the 'credit' aspect of the DCU and am quite puzzled as to the
    rest of DCU's 'banking business'.  Phil, you say

>    The purpose of the fees was to drive members to do their banking with
>    DCU, ie. to maximize the profit per member or household.

    I have no intention of ever 'banking' with the DCU.  I believe in
    'banking' with a local bank.  When i write out a check, I want the
    guy looking at it to FIRST off recognize the bank its drawn on.
    I'ld want him/her to bank at the same bank.  Maybe even have their
    local business account at the same bank.  This bank may not be
    a small bank...maybe its FLEET.  But its the bank that's located in
    my downtown.  (it probably was a local bank that's been swallowed up).
    The important thing is.....I wont write checks that say 'Digital
    Credit Union'.

    This has nothing to do with how much 'service' the DCU is willing
    to provide me.  All they can do is REALLY drive me away.  They
    can do nothing to 'entice' me into banking more completely with
    the DCU.

    I have a certain amount deducted from my paycheck every week and put
    into the DCU.  I consider this 'paying off a car loan'.  Sometimes I
    actually have a car loan.  Sometimes I don't.  When I don't, I
    consider this saving up for a down payment.  But this amount
    is not enough to be considered a 'relationship member'.  Is the
    DCU's intention really to drive away everyone who wont, for
    whatever reason, increase their 'banking services' with the DCU?

    They're certainly doing all they can to drive me away.
    bob armstrong

    
    RE: .187
    
    I don't understand your reasoning with regards to where you have your
    checking account.  I have never had anybody or any business look at the
    institution a check was drawn on and refuse to accept it or question
    it.  Have you? 
    
    >Is the DCU's intention really to drive away everyone who wont, for
    >whatever reason, increase their 'banking services' with the DCU?
    
    The purpose is to be profitable on a per member and/or household basis. 
    Those that meet the profitability model pay no fees.  Those that don't,
    pay fees.  Unfortunately, we will lose many good members because they
    just don't want to deal with all this.  We must recognize that when we
    lose members, our credit union is weakened.  It is no different than a
    business that losses its customer base.
    
    Your situation describes what most people experience, namely a cycle of
    saving and borrowing.  I maintain that the net effect of these fees is
    negative to the credit union because it will drive away more long term
    business and members (your current savings and future car loan) than it
    will attract in the short term.  And the worse part of it is that it is
    not necessary because 1) there were valid alternatives to fees to deal
    with small balance accounts and 2) DCU is extremely profitable without
    them.  Eliminating the fee structure will not lead to the downfall of
    the credit union.
    

	
    Re: .185
    
    > At the same time, you do have to compare yourself with comparable
    > business, and banks ARE a comparable business.  
    
    Let's assert it this way.  As far as being comparable are concerned
    banks and credit unions are about as much alike as buying a car
    vs. leasing a car.  The same industry perhaps but the details
    and the needs of the potential customer of one vs. the other are
    significantly different.
    
    Your story about the bus company is perfect.  Chuck Cockburn was
    specifically asked why not poll the membership and find out what
    they want.  He specifically turned down the idea.  Perhaps Chuck
    once ran a bus company.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .186
    
    > The purpose of the fees was to drive members to do their banking with
    > DCU, ie. to maximize the profit per member or household.  The question
    > all members need to ask themselves is, do you want to be driven to do
    > business with DCU, or do you want DCU to be your automatic first
    > choice, *by choice*.
    
    And this is the crux of the entire issue.  Fees are only of benefit
    to the DCU per se, not to the membership.  YET AGAIN (Perhaps if we say
    this often enough they'll finally get it), the purpose of a credit
    union is TO SERVE ITS MEMBERS.  Profit should come as a byproduct of 
    the PULL which creates more business.
    
    I will NEVER be moved by strong arm tactics.  In fact I'm more likely
    to move business elsewhere (which I've done in part) and maintain my
    membership more as a thorn in their side.  
    
    Hoping for a change coming with the upcoming election,
    
    Steve
    

>    I don't understand your reasoning with regards to where you have your
>    checking account.  

Frankly, I dont care if the DCU understands it or agrees with it.  It's
my reasoning.  I like banking locally.  I like having 'credit' at the
Credit Union where I work.  I see them as VERY different situations.
    
>    >Is the DCU's intention really to drive away everyone who wont, for
>    >whatever reason, increase their 'banking services' with the DCU?
>    
>    The purpose is to be profitable on a per member and/or household basis. 
>    Those that meet the profitability model pay no fees.  Those that don't,
>    pay fees.  

I dont believe this, and I dont believe that you do either.  The purpose
of the fees is to punish those who are unwilling to give as much of their
banking services to the DCU as the DCU has decided it wants.

If the DCU cant make a profit on my small, automatic deposit, then it
deserves to go out of business.

I'm disappointed that you posted the above.  I dont want to think
that you really believe it.  It may be the current line, but I'm
surprised to hear it from you.
bob

    
>Frankly, I dont care if the DCU understands it or agrees with it.  It's
>my reasoning.  I like banking locally.  I like having 'credit' at the
>Credit Union where I work.  I see them as VERY different situations.
    
    Bob, please don't confuse *my* desire to understand your needs with
    DCU's.  What I was trying to understand was if there were operational
    issues that made you want to use a local bank versus DCU.  If it's just
    because you like to, then that's fine.
    
>I dont believe this, and I dont believe that you do either.  The purpose
>of the fees is to punish those who are unwilling to give as much of their
>banking services to the DCU as the DCU has decided it wants.
    
    It IS the way it was presented to us.  DCU gains nothing by "punishing"
    people.  It DOES gain if it drives you into behavior which meets its 
    profitability model.

>If the DCU cant make a profit on my small, automatic deposit, then it
>deserves to go out of business.
    
    No comment.

>I'm disappointed that you posted the above.  I dont want to think
>that you really believe it.  It may be the current line, but I'm
>surprised to hear it from you.

    I do believe it is PART of the rational.  But please don't mistake my
    stating it, for believing it (entirely).  I believe there are also
    other objectives.  The last alternative that members can avail
    themselves of is to just leave.  Now we have shrinking assets which is
    a positive factor on the capital ratio.  Short term, DCU is in a
    win-win position.  It's the long term that I am concerned about.  We'll
    never know how much money DCU will lose down the road in lost interest
    on loans that ex-members take out with our competitors.
    
    Whether you think it is "punishment" or I think it is an effort to
    squeeze the membership for more profits, I think we both agree that it is
    not a desireable approach for a credit union to be taking towards its
    owners.

>>If the DCU cant make a profit on my small, automatic deposit, then it
>>deserves to go out of business.
>    
>    No comment.
>

	'Nuf said ;-).

    As owners/members of the CU, doesn't it make sense to expect the CU to
    make a profit so that the members will benefit by better interest rates
    on savings and loans?

    
    Re .195:
    
    Yes, that would make sense.
    
    Unfortunately, from all external indications, management is interested
    in making a profit not to provide better service, but to meet an
    unspecified, ever increasing and now multiply defined capital/asset
    ratio.
    
    At which point management will likely get bonuses.
    

>    As owners/members of the CU, doesn't it make sense to expect the CU to
>    make a profit so that the members will benefit by better interest rates
>    on savings and loans?


Think about this a minute, because this is a circular problem.  If interest
rates were actually *now* better for savings and loans, DCU would be making
LESS profit.  Making a profit should ALLOW them to improve rates, but that
is not the goal.  The current goal is to improve the DREADED CAPITAL RATIO
with these profits.

Stuart

    
    RE: .195
    
>   As owners/members of the CU, doesn't it make sense to expect the CU to
>   make a profit so that the members will benefit by better interest rates
>   on savings and loans?
    
    Also think of it this way.  If DCU charges you a fee for doing business
    and returned a portion of those fee through better interest rates (this
    can be higher interest on savings or lower interest on loans), then you
    pay this fee to DCU, which you cannot deduct from your taxes, and then
    DCU turns around and either gives you back a portion of that money or
    charges you interest on your loan.  The interest on savings will be
    taxed (in Mass. you pay both state and federal income tax on this
    interest).  The lower interest on a loan will at best reduce the amount
    you can deduct from your taxes.  So you get bitten twice, once by the
    fee and once by the tax.  But as others have said, DCU has no intention
    of returning the profits on the fees back to the membership.
    
    FWIW: As a CU, DCU is a not-for-profit organization.  Therefore, DCU
    should not be trying to increase profits.
    
    ~Jon.

>>    FWIW: As a CU, DCU is a not-for-profit organization.  Therefore, DCU
>>    should not be trying to increase profits.

 Right but the Employees ARE!  The bonus goes to them for making money not us...
We just get the right to pay the increased fees.  Therefore I only have $5 at
DCU so they won't make much on me ;-.]    

    The nerve of DCU.  Paying their employees for a job well done.  Next
    thing you know everyone will be doing something like that and where
    will we be then?

    I don't think anyone objects to paying employees for a job well
    done ... it's the job they are expected to do that's up the creek!
    (viz make PROFIT).
    
    

    I really don't understand the concern over making a profit for the
    shareholders when the shareholders are us.  There are problems in
    making that profit available to the shareholders though.

RE:              <<< Note 694.200 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>

>    The nerve of DCU.  Paying their employees for a job well done.  Next
>    thing you know everyone will be doing something like that and where
>    will we be then?

	I don't have a problem with PAYING them for performance, but I do
	have a problem with giving them more than I can get, i.e. profit 
	sharing.  Especially when it is made by not having the CU do what
	so many people think it should.  You know, do the best for it's 
	members, and not try to be a bank. (When I grow up I want to be a
	bank?)

    
    Re: .194
    
    > How so?  The CU customer likes to be stroked more?
    
    Scads of notes in this file have made it clear that quite
    a number of people come to a credit union for things which they
    don't or can't get at a bank.  You may not, but others clearly
    do.
    
    > I think you missed the point of the bus company story.  The point was
    > that the non-customers should be polled, not the customers.  Also,
    > despite what Chuck might have said, DCU is doing membership surveys.

    I missed no point.  I understood that perfectly.  Chuck Cockburn
    specificially turned down the idea of surveying ANYONE about the
    proposal to implement fees.
    
    Steve
    
    

    
    Re: .195
    
    > As owners/members of the CU, doesn't it make sense to expect the CU to
    > make a profit so that the members will benefit by better interest rates
    > on savings and loans?
    
    Why do you insist on overlooking what people are saying?  NO ONE HAS
    SAID PROFIT IS NOT IMPORTANT.  The point is that PROFIT SHOULD NOT
    BE THE FIRST OR PRIMARY PRIORITY.  Do you get it now?
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .200
    
    > The nerve of DCU.  Paying their employees for a job well done.  Next
    > thing you know everyone will be doing something like that and where
    > will we be then?
    
    No, the nerve of DCU is setting up the job so doing it well is
    intended to bring about benefits to the employees at the expense
    of the shareholders.
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    RE: The "discussion" about whether or not DCU employees should be
    rewarded... NOTE this has nothing to do with the fact that there
    shouldn't be "relationship members"...
    
    Here's some fodder for the fire... Do you suppose that anyone has
    gotten a great raise in the last couple of years at the DCU?  Perhaps
    the minimum if anything... kinda like Digital?   Put yourself in
    *their* position.. If you've done a "better than average" job, wouldn't
    you *expect* to be rewarded in some manner... If not would you be
    happy?  Wouldn't you look for work elsewhere?  Get real!  Why should we
    be so worried about who gets what.. Maybe if you relate it to the
    Digital stock shareholders, and our position as employees... I know if
    I feel I've done a better than average job, I would like to get 
    rewarded in some manner, whether that comes in the form of a bonus or 
    a better raise or even a promotion... Do you think that a Digital stock
    holder (perhaps my cube neighbor) would be as upset and worked up into
    a frenzy?
    
    The current employees of the CU *know* they are under great scrutiny
    and also are working to dig out of the mess that some*one* caused... It
    just happens that the people that "approved" that someone's deals
    worked for the company that now is giving them great scrutiny... Do you
    really fault the tellers or even a loan officers? 
    
    If you truly believe people don't deserve recognition and are "abusing"
    your money, maybe investing your money elsewhere is the answer...
    
    Other than the Mangone mess, in what areas is the CU failing to cover
    losses?  From my reading of the minutes it appears that the loan loss
    coverage %ages are below "averages"...  Of course having to make up for
    one very large mess can severely hamper the effort "to get where you
    want to be"...
    
    
    
    John
    
    
    

re: 694.207 by STAR::FERLAN "DECamds as your cluster mgmt tool"

RE your comments:

    RE: The "discussion" about whether or not DCU employees should be
    rewarded... NOTE this has nothing to do with the fact that there
    shouldn't be "relationship members"...
    
    Here's some fodder for the fire... Do you suppose that anyone has
    gotten a great raise in the last couple of years at the DCU?  Perhaps
    the minimum if anything... kinda like Digital?   Put yourself in
    *their* position.. If you've done a "better than average" job, wouldn't
    you *expect* to be rewarded in some manner... 

I agree that people who do a good job should be rewarded. I think
what we disagree on is what constitutes a good job.

What makes me connect the fee increase and the bonus plan is the
timing of the DCU bonus plan.  It seemed to occur in close
proximity to the non-relationship-member fee increase. The fee
increase was explained (to me by Chuck Cockburn) as needed
because some members' accounts did not meet the profitablity
parameters in the DCU's model.  And, maybe coincidentally, the
new bonus plan is driven by the DCU's meeting profitability goals.

In the approximately 10 years that I've been a DCU member, I
don't remember any return of profits to the membership by special
dividends.  And, based on my comparisons, the DCU seems to be not
as competitive as it could be on interest rates. 

This fiscal year the DCU is showing record profits.

Now, why then would a bonus plan be based on profitability?  And 
why would the DCU need to charge members because they don't meet 
a profitability target?

The DCU (as a credit union) is supposedly non-profit in that it's 
a cooperative.  A credit union's primary goal, unlike a bank, is
not usually to make money for its shareholders, because that's 
us, the members, so we'd be making money on ourselves.  Certainly
some profit level is needed to maintain the business.  However,
in a year of record profits, why was there a need for instituting
a fee increase, disguised as non-relationship-member charges? 
And why implement a new bonus plan based on profitability?  That
makes me feel like the DCU employees will be rewarded for
implementing more ways to take members' money out of members 
pockets and put it in DCU's pockets and then in theirs via the 
bonus plan.  As the owners of the DCU, is that really what we
want to reward them for doing?  Aren't there other things we'd 
rather reward them for?

Maryellen

    
    Re: .208
    
    Thank you.  My sentiments precisely.
    
    
    I have no problem with bonuses, but a BIG problem if they are
    based ONLY on profitability.  Let me recount the following
    story told to me by the Deccie involved:
    
    A Deccie happened to be at a dinner that had people from a number of
    our competitors where he engaged a person from HP sales in conversation
    and asked how HP measures its sales reps.  He was very impressed when
    told that the most recent recipient of the salesperson of the year at
    HP which included a raise and promotion, had not made his previous
    years budget, BUT had broken all records for his score on customer
    satisfaction as reported by his accounts.  They simply could not say
    enough good about him.
    
    No wonder HP is doing very well right now.
    
    Steve
    

    
    
    I think I (and probably others) are having a problem separating the 
    (ahem) relationship between the following:
    
    	"Relationship Member"
    	"Record Profits"
    	"DCU Bonuses"
    
    Perhaps the BOD or Chuck should/could shed some light?  In a board
    memo or a "President's report"...
    
    IMO:
    
    Part of a TQM initiative (which as I understand was done at the DCU) is
    to provide some kind of rewards system...  It's only fair that those
    that "work harder" get rewarded.. regardless of the fact as to the
    "profitablity" of the rest of the "company"... see the raise Mr Palmer
    got?  did we really make a profit at Digital yet?  I'm sure there are 
    those in Digital for the last 3-4 years who've received above average
    raises, bonuses, promotions, etc.... Just because business is bad you
    can't ignore those that are doing well...
    
    The "Relationship Membership" has been coming down the pike since
    before/just after we had the special meeting... If you didn't see it
    then, well you missed something... I remember it being said that even
    though the fees are being lifted now, "we will be looking at this in
    th near term"... just because we had a special meeting and
    overwhelmingly voted against the *fees that were in place at the time*
    didn't mean new fees wouldn't be added at a later date...it's up to
    the membership to "rally" once again to rid ourselves of the new fees.
    Unfortuneatly for us, our biggest allies are on the BOD so they can't
    do much except vote their conscious and hope that they will be on the
    winning side...  I can only hope that the "new" BOD will have enough
    votes to remove the fees...  I know personally I don't have the time,
    energy, or $$$'s it takes to start a petition driver for a special
    meeting.
    
    
    "Record Profits" *could* be a side effect/direct relationship to the
    TQM initiatives taken over the last year... They could also relate to
    the fact that those that got laid off, put their $$'s in the DCU
    accounts, and thus inflated some values (not overly likely, but
    possible)... I'd like to think that the profits are a sign of a healthy
    credit union that is taking little risk in loans (i.e. loaning to its
    members only) and the fact that those of us who chose to stick it out
    with the DCU have confidence in it... so we start taking future loans
    out and placing more of our savings in...  
    
    Be positive, not negative..
    
    As for receiving dividends or our "share" of the profits... when in the
    history of Digital did Digital ever declare a dividend?  Never...
    that's longer than the 10 or so years than the DCU has been in
    existence...  It would be nice, mind you... I wouldn't mind... but if
    the BOD starts to put pressure on Chuck and company to put those
    profits back into the CU, then it only means our service has to go up
    at some point... If you look back over the last year at some of the
    programs offered ( refinance mortgage, refinance car loans, lower Gold
    card program, others I'm not aware of) you will see that the CU is 
    "investing in itself"... Just because you personally don't benefit
    (without taking advantage of a program) doesn't mean someone isn't 
    benefitting... when was the last time someone handed you money on the
    street just because you were there?  I think the programs DCU is 
    beginning to offer (and I'm told will offer more in the coming year)
    will only encourage you to do all your business with the CU...  PERHAPS
    maybe even they will increase the interest paid.. who knows... I'm sure
    though that that is not at the top of the priority list...
    
    
    John
    

>>    Part of a TQM initiative (which as I understand was done at the DCU) is
>>    to provide some kind of rewards system...  It's only fair that those
>>    that "work harder" get rewarded.. regardless of the fact as to the
>>    "profitablity" of the rest of the "company"...

Sorry, but what you've described is not my understanding of TQM.

TQM rewards are not for "working harder" but for working in ways that
enable others to reach their goals easier (especially customers), and 
usually include team-based recognition.

Your reference to Bob Palmer's raise seems to me to be irrelevant in this 
context, since Digital is not a TQM company.

If I've misrepresented TQM, I'm sure Steve Mac will straighten me out
(that's an invitation, Steve :-).

/bruce

I agree with John in that we seem to be getting the issues of
relationship banking, employee bonuses/raises, and credit union
profitability all mixed up.

I have no doubt that some employees at DCU certainly are desrving
of pay raises, performance bonuses, etc., and on the surface I
have very little trouble with that.  The credit union is doing well,.
money is being made, and if some folks no doubt deserve some
level of reward for their role in that.  IMO, nuff said.

The notion of record profitability and relationship banking is
where things really break down for me.  DCU is enjoying record
profits right now.  Calendar 1992 was a record year for DCU, and
I have no doubt that calendar 1993 will be another record year.
Given that we're making lots of money, why does management feel 
it's necessary to reach into our pockets for more?   

Management will tell you that it's necessary for everyone to pull
their own weight, that the capital ratio in whatever convenient
manifestation is all-important, and that it's necessary for the
long-term survival of the credit union to take these steps.  I
both agree and disagree with most of these notions.  

First, by definition, a credit union is a financial cooperative.  
The operative word here is "cooperative," as in "I help you, you 
help me."  The notion of placing a system of fees based on account 
balances in an effort to discourage low-balance accounts from staying 
in place seems to fly in the face of the definition of "cooperative."  

Second, the capital ratio is a very important number, and having
a ratio within acceptable levels is something I support.  However,
getting to this number (especially if the definition of the number
at it's value become moving targets) in a "do whatever it takes"
mode seems fairly narrow-minded to me.  All things in moderation,
please.  Our capital ratio sucked for a long time, we had a corrupt
administration robbing us, and we still didn't fail.  The ratio
should be improved, but getting there immediately should not be
the sole-minded goal of any administration.

As we've all said many times, DCU's ownership is it's membership,
and the credit union's most important asset is the members.  The
membership is responsible for the success of DCU:  as a population
we tend to save well, spend carefully, and hardly ever do terrible
things like default on loans or go bankrupt.   Our spending and
savings habits have contributed largely to DCU's profits the past
couple years, and as owners we should expect a return.  This is
not the same thing as expecting a dividend from a non-dividend
paying company like Digital, because the relationship beween 
DCU and it's membership is not the same as the relationship
between investor and common stock company.  

Nobody has ever said that every nickel of profit must be returned
to the membership.  In fact, doing that would not be acceptable.
The key here is that a balance should be struck between improving
the capital ratio, rewarding employees for a job well done, and
rewarding the membership for a successfull year.  When DCU goes
for several years making large profits, retaining all of it, and
then paying bonuses to it's employees, it won't take long before
the customers/owners become dissatisfied.    And when you add in
a fee structure on top of that, the table is set for outright
disgust.

Finally, whoever noted about HP sales people being rewarded
not only for dollars of revenue generated, but also for
customer/account satisfaction was dead-on correct.  Profit
should not be the only motive for rewarding one's employees.

Chris

>    TQM initiatives taken over the last year... They could also relate to
>    the fact that those that got laid off, put their $$'s in the DCU
>    accounts, and thus inflated some values (not overly likely, but
>    possible)... I'd like to think that the profits are a sign of a healthy
>    credit union that is taking little risk in loans (i.e. loaning to its
>    members only) and the fact that those of us who chose to stick it out
>    with the DCU have confidence in it... so we start taking future loans
>    out and placing more of our savings in...  


Profits are made not from savings, but from lending.  Now granted, you've
got to have the savings to lend, but DCU is doing too well at savings and
too poorly at lending ... which helps contribute to the poor capital
ratio.  But while DCU is doing well for money on deposit, a big problem
is the "quality" of those deposits ... A long term deposit is excellent
quality because it is possible to match loan to deposit almost 1 for 1.
Deposits which come and go over short cycles are poor quality, because it
is impossible for DCU to know from one day to the next whether those funds
will be available for lending.

The capital difference between what DCU has on Deposit and What it has
loaned out, actually costs DCU, because it is unlikely ot be able to
loan it out to organizations I believe like the Federal Reserve at rates 
any higher than it pays us, and then they must keep some of those funds
as a float anyway for operating, and these earn no interest to DCU at all.

By implementing fees, and putting withdrawal restrictions on accounts like
the Christmas Club type accounts, they can maintain a lower float and
discourage poor quality deposits(eg savings accounts that are nearly as active
as the chequing accounts).  That way, they can get a closer grasp of the
quality deposits actually available for higher rate lending to produce income
and "profits".

I doubt very much whether it is the actual risk exposure on loans that keeps
DCU's loan rates high, but rather the uncertainty of the actual amount
of quality deposits that is actually loanable.  (If DCU loaned out too much 
money relative to its deposits, and then too many members came in withdrawing
their money for some reason (like TFSO), then to pay the members, it may
have to call or sell loans ... losing income.  It's actually a tricky
balance ...)

The income equation is definitely a complex one ... and it looks like Chuck is
definitely trying to get a handle on this ... the trouble is he and the board
are in too much of a hurry and really cheesing people off in doing so.

Stuart

re:  .214

I'm not Phil, although I'm going to play him on the made for TV
movie :-),. but I can offer an answer.

The NCUA has held that the membership of a credit union may not
take actions which limit the power of the executive officers of
the credit union.  That is, we as members may not establish 
policies which in any way limit the actions that management may
take in the daily operation of the credit union.

This is the same reasoning that allows DCU to impose fees on
services despite the membership mandate against these fees
voted in at the Special Meeting back in November, 1991.

It stinks, and I don't agree with it, but the NCUA makes 
the rules, and there's not much that we can do about those.

Chris

    
    Re:
    
>    Why can't we petition to put an article on the adgenda for this year's
>    regular meeting to rid ourselves of fees once and for all?  If we can,
>    how when do we do this?  And can we get enough regular-nonDCU workers
>    [not slighting them] to come and support it?
    
    The best way to get rid of fees is to elect a board that doesn't agree
    with checking fees. In the upcoming election the DCU membership will
    have just that chance. There will be candidates running (myself
    included) whose statements will very clearly state their opposition to fees
    on basic services.
    
    The membership will have a clear choice. A continuance of the current
    policy of turning the credit union into a bank with all sorts of nickel
    and dime fees OR an opportunity to point the credit union back in the
    direction of what a credit union should be. That is where there are
    no membership classes and every member should be able to gain from
    being a member.
    
    The only thing the membership will have to do is make their choice
    known by voting.
    
    Dave

    FWIW, someone reported in the MASSACHUSETTS Notesfile mentioned that
    BayBank no longer waives checking fees for Direct Depositors.  Checking
    fees are waived for either $1000 minimum balance in checking or $2000
    minimum balance in savings.

RE: Note 694.218 by PATE::MACNEAL

>    FWIW, someone reported in the MASSACHUSETTS Notesfile mentioned that
>    BayBank no longer waives checking fees for Direct Depositors.  Checking
>    fees are waived for either $1000 minimum balance in checking or $2000
>    minimum balance in savings.

I am sure DCU will be next...

	- mark

RE: Note 694.217 by PATE::MACNEAL

>    Now there's a novel and horrid idea -- giving employees bonuses for
>    making their company more profitable.  The nerve of some people.

I agree.  Especially when done using the TAXation method...  Reminds one
of the Boston Tea Party...  When will DCU learn?

	- mark

    
    Re: .211
    
    > TQM rewards are not for "working harder" but for working in ways that
    > enable others to reach their goals easier (especially customers), and
    > usually include team-based recognition.
     
    You could certainly look at it that way.  A true TQM program, IMO,
    would reward everyone since the point of TQM is that it is the system
    that enables your success, not the heroic efforts of a few.  Rewarding
    everyone would be recognizing that in a true TQM system everyone has
    a role to play and the system can't succeed without everyone's
    contribution.
    
    Steve
    

    
    Re: .217
    
    > Now there's a novel and horrid idea -- giving employees bonuses for
    > making their company more profitable.  The nerve of some people.
      
    Fine as long as you really KNOW how you made the profit and can point
    to that part of your system AND reward everyone involved.  Somehow I
    have very LITTLE confidence that the DCU can do this.
    
    Steve
       

    
    
    re:  Somehow I
        have very LITTLE confidence that the DCU can do this.
    
    Maybe it's this fatalistic view that clouds your vision to the DCU ever
    making a change or program that would suffice your needs ?  (half
    tongue in cheek  -- half not )
    
    Remember that the folks that really screwed up the DCU were for the
    most part "highly placed Digital" personnel... NOT DCU personnel...
    
    You seem to have a tremendous beef with the DCU and you won't seem to 
    let it go and try and look forward, not backward...  Is there a DCU
    program you like?
    
    
    John
    

    
    
    ==   I beg your pardon.  It was the ex-President of the DCU -- a member of
    ==    DCU personnel -- that "screwed up" the DCU.
    
    
    Oh yes, a technicality...   BUT, if the BOD didn't just "let" this
    president do what he wanted and basically scam them...  Think about
    it... do you honestly believe a member of the current boar would allow
    this to happen?   Remember who *HIRED* him too...
    
    
    John
    

    RE:.225
    
   > Oh yes, a technicality...   BUT, if the BOD didn't just "let" this
   > president do what he wanted and basically scam them...  Think about
   > it... do you honestly believe a member of the current boar would allow
   > this to happen?   Remember who *HIRED* him too...
    
    	I believe 5 maybe 6 on the current board are allowing it now.
    
    Joe

    
    Re: .223
    
    John,
    
    Whoa.  Hold on just a minute.  Yes, there were members of the BoD who
    contributed to the mess, but in the interest of looking forward, as you
    put it, we can't lay the current flap over fees at their feet now can
    we?  My beefs have NOTHING to do with the past and EVERYTHING to do
    with the present.
    
    I am not happy with the fact that the DCU chooses to ignore the wishes
    of the members.   With respect to the proposed fees, Chuck Cockburn
    specifically rejected a request to communicate with the membership and
    try to lead the DCU in a direction that the membership will support.
    
    I have NO beef with ANY direction for the DCU that is clearly in
    keeping with the wishes of the shareholders.  The current leadership,
    however, insists on avoiding the wishes of the members and pushing
    ahead with fees.  
    
    
    Steve
    
    

    re: the last few
    
    I think that one of the significant differences between what was before
    and what is now is that there is now an active Supervisory Committee.
    From what I have observed, the SC is adhering to NCUA recommendations. 
    If any of you have reason to believe that something inappropriate is
    happening, send it to the NCUA or draw it to the attention of those
    that represent you at DCU.  The SC is empowered and obliged to investigate
    formal complaints.  I have personally observed genuine enthusiasm on
    the part of SC members to scrutinize the operations of DCU and to 
    take appropriate actions.  They are also keen on upholding the
    decisions of the current BoD.  This is another reason why DCU members
    should participate in BoD elections.
    
    Steve 

    RE: .226 and .227...
    
    I think what .226 was saying is that he feels the current BoD is as bad
    as the previous in that they are allowing fees and the general change
    in attitudes.

Yes, the fees have started.  I've lowered my hodlings at the DCU to the minimum
needed to maintain my membership and cover outsanding checks.

I've moved my business to four other financial institution, three of which I've
recommended to Lisa Demauro Ross as references:

Institution	Free, interest	 Free, Interest	 Minimum	Other	  No Fee
		bearing checking bearing savings Balance	services  CrCd
Colo Nat Banks	Yes		 Yes (MM)	 0/$100 to open	Free Kids 8.9%
		200 checks free	 free checks			accounts
		free $15 safe deposit box
		ATMs at malls and 7-11s
		8.9% Personal Credit Line

Norwest Bank	Yes, no int	 Yes		 0			  9.9%
		200 free checks
		ATMs at malls
		6 Colorado Springs Branches
		7% credit line

Sec Svc FCU	Yes, no int	 Yes		 100		 "Service 11.9
		3 Colo Sp Branches  				 Guarantee"
		7-7 M-F, 9-5 Saturday
		

Quick & Reilly	Yes (MM checking)		 0		 Auto deposit
 Stock Broker							 and wdrl for
								 transactions

  I have $.01 in checking and $5 in main account also...

    Hmmmm, Deja vu all over again...  

    There ARE two Directors on the DCU Board who voted AGAINST fees which
    the membership clearly rejected two years ago.  I am proud to say I was
    one of them.  Unfortunately, two other Directors that I worked and
    voted for decided that "holding the line against fees" was a statement
    with enough room to slide under and vote for fees under the guise of
    "fairness" and with the justification of oh well, there are ways of not
    paying them.  There were also ways of not paying the original fees
    and THE MEMBERSHIP SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT THEM.

    So that brings us to where we are today, smack in the middle of an
    election with *3* Directors up for re-election.  I am one of those
    three directors.  If two PRO-FEES Directors were to be replaced with
    two NO-FEES then there would be a 4-3 shift to NO-FEES.  So it's
    entirely up to the membership!  Work and vote for NO-FEES or just
    accept what you get, or take your business elsewhere.  DCU will only be
    a credit union if YOU care to make it one.  Directors that serve on the
    Board only as long as YOU put them there.  The decision is yours. 
    Talk, talk talk, or ORGANIZE, WORK, and VOTE.

    OK, call me clueless, but I only just now tumbled to what's going on.
    
    My only relationship with DCU is that I let them hold onto some of my
    money.  They loan this out to people who want to buy stuff.  They
    charge these people interest for the use of the money.  I get a portion
    of this interest as "rent" on my money that's being used.
    
    Now the DCU wants to charge me two dollars a month for the privilege of
    letting them borrow my money to loan to other folks so they can make
    money?  Am I missing something here?
    
    If somebody wanted to borrow your car for the weekend, you'd expect
    them to at least fill the tank when they brought it back, right?
    
    I may be clueless, but I am not an idiot.  I guess it's time to put my
    money elsewhere.
    

>    OK, call me clueless, but I only just now tumbled to what's going on.
    
>    My only relationship with DCU is that I let them hold onto some of my
>    money.  They loan this out to people who want to buy stuff.  

Although you're right, you're not looking at with the 'DCU spin'.

The DCU has gotten greedy.  It doesn't want to just hold a little of
your money.  It knows you've got more.  And you probably keep it
in another BANK!  (gasp!)  So, it wants to encourage you to put more
of your money in the DCU.  So its offering a carrot.  The carrot
is that it wont charge you fees.  Isn't that sweet?

What amazes me is that they can say this with a straight face!
bob

Turns out I'm not a relationship member.  My home
mortgage which was sold is no longer active since I
refinanced - and DCU knew this (and never bothered to
distinguish in any literature I've seen on this subject
between active and inactive sold mortgages).

Fortunately for me, I barely meet a few of the minimums
in a number of accounts that keep me fee-free.  I have
changed banks and/or credit cards every time that it
started to charge fees that impacted me.  Yes, it's a
hassle.  But I'm cheap.  :-)  Hopefully, all this nonsense
will be history in a few months.  I'd certainly be history
if I was actually being charged fees (except for a token
deposit to challenge the idiocy of what has been happening
recently).

Collis

    re: .237
    
    > Fortunately for me, I barely meet a few of the minimums
      ^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^
    > in a number of accounts that keep me fee-free.
    
    Fortunately for _DCU_, otherwise it sounds like they'd lose you as a
    member.
    
    	Steve

>       <<< Note 694.237 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "DCU fees?  NO!!!" >>>
>                       -< only active sold mortgages... >-
>
>Turns out I'm not a relationship member.  My home
>mortgage which was sold is no longer active since I
>refinanced - and DCU knew this (and never bothered to
>distinguish in any literature I've seen on this subject
>between active and inactive sold mortgages).
    
    Collis, what is the source of your information?  This interpretation 
    of the "relationship" was never mentioned in our Board discussions.  I
    will speak for myself here, but we were told that getting a mortgage
    from DCU would grant members relationship status.  I asked about this
    several times, since DCU has sold hundreds of these over the last few
    years.  How did DCU know that the mortgage was refinanced?  Was a
    credit report pulled or was information proved on another loan
    application?
    
    This really points out what members are going to have to go thru on an
    ongoing basis under "relationship banking".  Am I relationship this
    month?  Next month?  Do we really want to have to deal with this?  Why
    can't we ALL just be valued present and/or future customers.

This is what the teller at the local ZKO branch told me
when I inquired.  I am definately NOT listed as a
relationship member.  She specifically inquired whether
or not 

 - the mortgage was an original mortgage (not a refinance - it was)
 - I had subsequently refinanced the DEFCU mortgage

Collis

    
    RE: .240
    
    Collis, when the qualifications for "relationship" were explained these
    were not listed.  Some clarification please.
    
> - the mortgage was an original mortgage (not a refinance - it was)
    
    Do you mean not a refinance of an existing DCU mortgage?  Or just not a
    refinance period?
    
> - I had subsequently refinanced the DEFCU mortgage
    
    How did they know that you did?  Did they say they pulled an updated credit
    report on you?
    

I was a first-time home buyer who took out a DCU mortgage to
buy the home.  I subsequently refinanced.  I don't know that
they actually *did* know I refinanced until I told the teller;
perhaps they did know and that meant I was no longer a
relationship member; perhaps they didn't know and I shouldn't
have been a relationship member or perhaps the teller was
all wrong and I really should be a relationship member.  

At any rate, DEFCU has never clarified this point until the
teller clarified it for me - and I have no idea if she really
knows (although the fact that she claims I'm not a relationship
member is a good start towards believing her).

Collis

    
    
    although check fees were recended, I see that we still have
    "relationship" members as well as scumbag members.  To me, it wasn't so
    much the checking fee is the attitude that all credit union members 
    are class assoicated.  This is from the literature that just came in
    the mail, and AFTER the new candidates that said they didn't like 
    relationship terms.  I'm confused.
    
    reference 694.6 where Phil says he didn't vote for it [to start}
    "NO.  A thousand times NO.  Unfortunately, only one of them counted."
    ==============================
    
    Note 694.16                I'm a Relationship Member!                 
    16 of 242
    SMAUG::GARROD "From VMS -> NT, Unix a future page f" 10 lines 
    14-SEP-1993 22:12
                          -< I'm a "relationship member" too >-
    
        I too just received my package telling me that I'm a "Relationship
        Member". To put it mildly I'm incensed by it. I'm waiting until I
    cool
        down a little before completing my letter to the DCU BOD.
    =======================================
    
    Note 694.19                I'm a Relationship Member!                 
    19 of 242
    AOSG::GILLETT "But that trick never works!"          47 lines 
    15-SEP-1993 09:31
                           -< Stupid Credit Union Tricks... >-
    Didn't those individuals who currently WORK FOR US as members of the
    Board of Directors LISTEN when we went through this last time.  Perhaps
    they need to be told in short, easy to comprehend sentences:
    
                    NO FEES.  NO "RELATIONSHIPS."
    
    
    Whether it's "You can have any color you want as long as it's black" or
    it's "Dear Valued Member" a fee structure is a fee structure is a fee
    structure.  If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and flies like
    a duck, it's gotta be a duck.
    
    This is utter nonsense, and simply must be stopped once and for all.
          
    Chris also mentioned how he didn't like the idea of gainsharing.
    
    
    Its funny what a difference a year makes, I guess it's ok to have
    scumbag savers, we were thrown the bone of no check fees to keep us
    happy.
    
    Have you heard any plans from the new guys?
    
    ed
    

    re .243:  "Have you heard any plans from the new guys?"
    
    I've heard that the DCU annual planning meeting is happening within 
    the week.  Frankly, I would like to see the new board implement new
    policies in a deliberate, careful fashion.  I think it's nice that
    they took quick action on the checking account fees, but for the
    rest, I'd like them to take the time to put together a complete
    plan, rather than just taking isolated actions.  I hope and trust 
    that before the end of the year we'll hear about what was planned.  
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry

RE: Note 694.244 by WRKSYS::SEILER

>    I've heard that the DCU annual planning meeting is happening within 
>    the week.  Frankly, I would like to see the new board implement new
>    policies in a deliberate, careful fashion.  I think it's nice that
>    they took quick action on the checking account fees, but for the
>    rest, I'd like them to take the time to put together a complete
>    plan, rather than just taking isolated actions.  I hope and trust 
>    that before the end of the year we'll hear about what was planned.  

I think that Phil has an idea of problems that need working on.  I am
also aware of problems, which means that most likely so are Dave and
Chris.  If there are problems, let us work on them and solve them.

I do realize that some of these problems may take months or even into
years to solve (Rome was not built in a day).  I am pleased that they
reacted quickly to eliminate what never should have occurred (checking
fees), but also realize that a business is being run -- it has to change
in a fashion that allows all DCU employees to follow the change.

Good things are yet to come.  Once we have undone many of the goofy
programs from Chuck & company, we can then move onto bigger and better
things.

	- mark

    
    
    "trust us"????
    
    It would be nice if they communicated with us!  I thought the idea of
    relationship member was the centerplace of their argument.  the check
    fee was one element of the argument.  check out this note alone.
    
    I don't care if it takes them two years.  If they acknowledge the
    problem and give us a date when they can give us a date to give us a
    date when a plan with be given!
    
    this glossy with scum bag saver written all over it just got sent out
    two months after they take office.  it was mailed on their watch.  they
    never said a word about it.  YES I AM HOLDING THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE.
    I am holding them accountable for their silence.
    \
    I do forward what i say here to them.  I heard back from one NON-3g
    director who said that that director had wanted to put out a board memo
    but was told that a chair memo would be forthcomeing.  but never
    happen.
    
    do I feel like buyer's remorse?  not yet.  But if we fall asleep, they
    have the possiblity of being as non-responsive as any other board.
    do we want that?
    
    I'll wait, but it would be nice if they told me how long!
    
    or does it matter?
    
    fee were never the issue, mind set is.  mind set doesn't change
    overnight.  I am insulted by being thrown the bone without water.
    ed
    

From:	US2RMC::"Cgillett@aol.com" 10-NOV-1994 20:31:35.65
To:	wldbil::kilgore, npss::badger
CC:	Gransewicz@aol.com, DGarrod@aol.com
Subj:	Response to Badger...

Bill or Ed:

Would one of you please post this in it's entirety in the appropriate 
string in DCU notes?  This is in response to Ed Badger's claim that all
the board has done is throw him a bone.

Thanks!
Chris


	[This posting does not represent the opinions of DCU or the entire
	Board of Directors.  This posting may be shared with any DCU member
	as long as the text is unchanges and the appropriate forwarding
  	headers are retained.]


Ed Badger writes:

> Subject: care to comment?

You bet I do!

>Date: 94-11-09 08:45:28 EST

>    although check fees were recended, I see that we still have
>    "relationship" members as well as scumbag members.  To me, it wasn't so
>    much the checking fee is the attitude that all credit union members 
>    are class assoicated.  This is from the literature that just came in
>    the mail, and AFTER the new candidates that said they didn't like 
>    relationship terms.  I'm confused.

Here are the things I campaigned on:

	1.  An end to fees on essential and basic services,

	2.  An end to "relationship banking" as it has been defined,

	3.  A return to a more member-driven credit union philosophy

        4.  A focus on DCU's valuable membership

What I *didn't* campaign on was a promise to make it all happen in under
60 days.  It took longer than that to develop and implement the relationship
banking plan, and it will take longer than my first two months on the 
board to realize all the changes that DCU needs. 

Ed, you appear to have a misconception regarding how the board and management
interact and how things get done.  It is up to the board to set the direction
and the general approach.  It is up to management to come back to the board
with proposals and concepts to implement the direction and approach set by
the board.  This process works well, but it also takes some time.  

I've said all along that I've opposed "relationship banking" and I continue
to hold to that belief.   I believe that at least Phil Gransewicz, Paul
Kinzelman and Dave Garrod support my view.  There will be changes in these 
policies at DCU, plans are being made and discussed right now.  

>    Chris also mentioned how he didn't like the idea of gainsharing.

Given that you conveniently didn't quote what I wrote I can't be absolutely
certain what you're talking about here.  Are you talking about gainsharing 
(the sharing of profits with employees annually for achieving certain goals),
or member bonus dividends?  Let me offer opinions on both of these things:

1.  The notion of employee gainsharing in the credit union industry makes 
    sense under two conditions:

       a.  When it is done as part of a total quality management approach
           to setting goals, achieving them, and improving the business.

       b.  When it is done in conjunction with the sharing of profits with
           the owners/investors of the business - in this case the
membership.

    DCU has a gainsharing plan in place, and the Board unanimously voted to
    to leave it in place for 1994.  Given that it's part of DCU's TQM
project,
    it makes sense.  Given that the employees have been expecting it for a 
    year, it seems to me to be bad faith to take it away.  I think the idea
    is good, although I'd like to see the gainsharing plan better defined
    and better funded next year.


2.  Bonus dividends are a way of rewarding those who have invested in DCU
    and/or contributed to its profitability.  I think an intelligently
    crafted bonus dividend plan encourages members to stay with DCU, and
    to think of DCU first when looking for a particular service or product.
    DCU currently has no bonus dividend in place.  I would expect that to
    change in the future.


Let's turn to the subject of timeframes and schedules, which seem to be
foremost in Ed's mind these days.

There are two ways that the board can do its work within DCU:

1.  We can come in, take essential control of DCU's operations, disregard
    any input from DCU's management, and make a large number of changes
    overnight.   The price one pays for this is that decisions get made
    without data, you lose support from management, and you don't get a
    cohesive business model to take into the future.

2.  The board can set a direction and approach, and ask for input from
    management.  Management will (and does very well) provide raw data,
    analyses of this data, and specific recommendations for implementing
    the board's mandates. In this scenario you get the data needed to
    make intelligent decisions, you keep and/or gain the support of
    management, and you can organize the decisions into a business model
    which makes sense down the road.

The obvious difference here is that in Plan (1) things happen very quickly,
whereas with Plan (2) things take more time.   We are trying very hard to
use Plan (2) to get things done, relying on Plan (1) only when absolutely
necessary.

In addition to the above, the directors of financial institutions need to
be diligent in their acquisition and analysis of data.  As directors, we
have a fiduciary responsibility to the membership to make good, well-informed
decisions.  The recently enacted FIREA statutes give the goverment 
considerable teeth in tossing violators in prison and assessing heavy fines.
While I see absolutely no problem turning away from the "relationship
banking approach" and I see no problem with reducing and eliminating fees,
it is essential that this be done with a full and complete analysis of all
the available information.  I have no desire to rush to do something, pick
the wrong alternative, and wind up in Club Fed as a result.

A financial institution can be seen mathematically as a giant simultaneous
equation.  There are reactions for every action taken.  Changing one number
*must* change others.  Playing "what if" questions with things like fee
reductions, interest rate spreads, promotional concepts, investment 
instruments, etc., even with DCU's not-insubstantial computer resources
takes time.

>    Its funny what a difference a year makes, I guess it's ok to have
>    scumbag savers, we were thrown the bone of no check fees to keep us
>    happy.
>    
 
A year Ed?   Check your math...the current board has been seated for 
about 2 months.  

The rescinding of checking account fees is hardly a "bone."  It is part
of a larger plan make several changes to DCU's fee and relationship
structure. In reviewing the data provided to us, this was an obviously
easy decision to reach, and so we chose to do it quickly.   The issue that
prompted people to sign up for the first Special Meeting was the checking
account fees.  The issue that got this obscure and unknown guy named
Phil Gransewicz to decide to do something was checking account fees. Ending
them now makes good business sense, and in my mind signals the beginning
of the end to a very painful past few years.

>    Have you heard any plans from the new guys?

The board held it's annual planning conference about two weeks after after
the annual meeting in which we were elected.  The planning conference is
a two day affair in which management and the board talk about the future
of the credit union.  Concensus voting is done to resolve differences, 
and management leaves the conference with a clear idea of where the board
wants to go.  They also have a set of action items to follow up on in
developing the business plan for the next year and further out.   There is
a lot of material presented and discussed.  My briefing papers for this
conference were about six inches thick.  

The conference was, in my mind, very successful.  Management is working now
on their plans, and will be presenting them to the Board in the near 
future.  When we've gotten things firmed up and clearly defined, the
information will be forthcoming.  I think the "tone and tempo" of the
conference reflects the composition of the board now.

The current board has been seated since late September.  Since the Annual
Meeting, the following has occurred:

   1.  President Cockburn announced his resignation, completed his duties
       at DCU, and left for Hudson Valley Credit Union.

   2.  The Board held it's first meeting and elected the Executive Committee.
       We also rescinded the monthly checking account fee that has been the
       subject of a lot of the controversy over the past several months.

   3.  The Board selected a Search Committee to find a new CEO.  I've had
       several conversation with our recruiter.  Working with DCU staff,
       we've begun the position specification phase in earnest.

   4.  The Chairman of the Board made all board subcommittee appointments.

   5.  The Human Resources Committee held it's first meeting.

   6.  The Finance and Investment Committee held it's first meeting.

   7.  The Board held a 2 day planning conference to discuss plans and
       give management our views regarding direction and approach.

   8.  A Supervisory Committee member resigned unexpectedly, prompting 
       a need for the Board to designate a new member.

   9.  The NCUA examiners who are responsible for DCU's annual examination
       visited the Board during a special meeting to introduce themselves
       to the new board and to discuss our present and future direction.

  10.  The Search Committee chose an executive placement firm to recruit
       a new CEO.  A nationwide search will be underway before the end
       of November.

  11.  DCU completed its updates and improvements to the ATM system.

  12.  DCU rolled out the new Check Cards in one of its most successful
       product rollouts to date.

  13.  DCU completed its updates and improvements to the Easy Touch system.

  14.  The Board will meet twice in November, once in a informal environment 
       to discuss our recruiting efforts for a new CEO, and again in late 
       November for our regular monthly meeting.


So, I think it's fair to say that we've been busy.  DCU Management has been
working hard, the board has been working hard, and the subcommittees have
been working hard.  We've had to be more reactive to circumstances during
our first 60 days than I would have hoped, but the work continues in spite
of the unexpected.  

Rome was built, or remodeled, in a day.   DCU wasn't built in a day, and
DCU isn't going to be remodeled in a day.   We are working the issues, 
making plans, and bringing about important changes.  We are also trying
to build the trust of management, and gain the respect of employees. 

We'll get there Ed.  But you can't expect a 60 day miracle.

Chris



% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
% Received: from inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com by us2rmc.zko.dec.com (5.65/rmc-22feb94) id AA06819; Thu, 10 Nov 94 20:31:19 -050
% Received: from mail02.mail.aol.com by inet-gw-3.pa.dec.com (5.65/10Aug94) id AA27605; Thu, 10 Nov 94 17:28:56 -080
% Received: by mail02.mail.aol.com (1.38.193.5/16.2) id AA16592; Thu, 10 Nov 1994 20:28:47 -050
% Date: Thu, 10 Nov 1994 20:28:47 -0500
% From: Cgillett@aol.com
% Message-Id: <941110195429_5046181@aol.com>
% To: wldbil::kilgore, npss::badger
% Cc: Gransewicz@aol.com, DGarrod@aol.com
% Subject: Response to Badger...
    

I must say I agree with the approach that Chris is taking.

Bob

And I think Chris did an absolutely superb job of providing the data and an
action plan along with setting some realistic expectations around timeframes.

Well done!

//bruce

I will note, again, how refreshing it is to have a board which communicates with
us and tells us what's going on, rather than the old model which seemed to
believe that the more in the dark the membership was, the better off for them.

-Jack

    
    
    Six inches of material to review?
    
    Egads, a true case of "Better Thee Than Me"...
    
    Makes me appreciate the hard work that the new board has been doing
    all the more! Also, it would appear that there is a bit of a balancing
    act to maintain the morale of the DCU employees and keep things rolling
    along until Chuck's replacement can be recruited. We will have a
    difficult time attracting excellent talent if we don't have our act
    together. A positive spin, along with a clear sense of direction (even
    if it means some hard work for everyone), will be our best ally.
    
    

    
    a couple things,
    
    I don't expect magic, nor immediate changes, nor do I want anything
    scredup before looking at it.  I'm not dumb.
    
    the year time frame was back from sept when chris started commenting on
    gainsharing and relationships, as well as dave and phil.
    
    it doesn't bother me if they consider that they must attack me for
    wanting to know what is going on.  At least we were finally feed some
    information.  If we start getting complacent, well, you know what we'll
    get.  perhaps I am guilty of not being a wordsmith...
    
    It would suprise me that scumb bag saver terms still go out in official
    commucations setn to members two months after the election where the
    issues surrounded the idea of 'relationships' and DCU attitudes.
    
    One can't fix everything fast, but certainly, the managment should be
    able to grasp the idea of  members not bank, without having to come
    down from the mountain with 10 engraved stones.
    
    If I were [and a lot of people are glad I'm not] a director, I'd hardly
    claim glamour for the new easytouch system or bank card.
    
    the easytouch system sounds soo bad.  and harder to manuver through.
    
    the bank card, the most successful program to roll out?  give me a
    break.  no one I talk to like the idea, and its not breaking here to
    easy.  who would want to pay the hidden 25 cent FEE?  New information
    coming out?  I just got the 'new' information.  I guess I'm not up to
    DCU-jibberish yet.  how do they know its the most ssuccessful program
    what are the measurements?  it was forced down everyone's throats.
    
    
    you got real choices now, as long as they agree with the choices made 
    FOR you.  YOu can communicate as long as you say the words that are
    wanted to be heard.
    
    
    I worry about the six inches of material..  sounds like someone wanted
    someone to be snowed.  I can't possible image going over that much 
    material in a two day planning conference.  sounds like a game.
    
    now if we could do as at Disney, where customers were Guests spelt with
    a capital G  purposely,  perhaps it would replace customers as
    Member or Owner  we wouldn't need to micromanagement, and it wouldn't
    take years to implement.
    
    just me,
    ed

re: .252
    
>    the easytouch system sounds soo bad.  and harder to manuver through.
    
Aw, c'mon now!  It doesn't sound any worse than the old one, just
different.  I personally don't see where it's any harder to maneuver
through, either.  And as far as I'm concerned, the new ability to find
out the status of *any* check, not just the last five cleared, makes
the new system *much* improved.

>    the bank card, the most successful program to roll out?  give me a
>    break.  no one I talk to like the idea, and its not breaking here to
>    easy.  

Hey, lots of us *like* it.  If you don't you don't have to get one.

-Hal

re .252:

>   the year time frame was back from sept when chris started commenting on
>   gainsharing and relationships, as well as dave and phil.

Chris' point was that until 2 months ago, he had no power to do anything
about it, and 2 months isn't long enough to do anything about it unless
they want to trample all over management and the other board members.
Gathering data and building consensus takes time.

>   it doesn't bother me if they consider that they must attack me for
>   wanting to know what is going on.  At least we were finally feed some
>   information.  If we start getting complacent, well, you know what we'll
>   get.  perhaps I am guilty of not being a wordsmith...

Electronic messages have the problem that emotions aren't communicated
and tend to be read into them.  You saw Chris' reply as an attack.  I
didn't, but your messages to Chris et. al. looked pretty harsh to me.
I think we should all start with the assumption that nothing anyone says is
an attack and focus on the second part of what you say -- we ARE getting
MORE feedback from the Board.  And, we're getting it in writing, which
certain former (and some current) board members were highly reluctant to do.


>   It would suprise me that scumb bag saver terms still go out in official
>   commucations setn to members two months after the election where the
>   issues surrounded the idea of 'relationships' and DCU attitudes.

But as Chris says, it is management who writes these, not the Board, 
and there hasn't been time for management and the board to agree on and
set up a new system.  Until they do, you have to expect the existing
programs to continue as previously planned -- there has to be continuity.

I'll not comment on the ATM card/easy touch issues, except to say that
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that someone can "reserve" portions of
my checking account in advance of my actually approving a charge, and
possibly without my even knowing that it was done.  So I personally
don't plan to make much use of a debit card in place of a credit card.

>   I worry about the six inches of material..  sounds like someone wanted
>   someone to be snowed.  I can't possible image going over that much 
>   material in a two day planning conference.  sounds like a game.

Hey, I got a whole notebook full of information when I started on School
Council, and we are just an advisory board.  Most of it isn't gone over at
the meetings, it's background about rules, applicable laws, etc.  And the
DCU directors I'm sure got a *lot* of information about the DCU's financial
condition.  We're expected to read through the handouts outside the regular
meetings, and so are the DCU directors.  It's not a light job.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

RE: Note 694.252 by NPSS::BADGER
    
>    it doesn't bother me if they consider that they must attack me for
>    wanting to know what is going on.  At least we were finally feed some
>    information.  If we start getting complacent, well, you know what we'll
>    get.  perhaps I am guilty of not being a wordsmith...

Hmmm...  From my readings, you attacked them, they replied with the same thing
they have been saying all along...  I have not seen them attacking you, just
responding...
    
>    the bank card, the most successful program to roll out?  give me a
>    break.  no one I talk to like the idea, and its not breaking here to
>    easy.  who would want to pay the hidden 25 cent FEE?  New information
>    coming out?  I just got the 'new' information.  I guess I'm not up to
>    DCU-jibberish yet.  how do they know its the most ssuccessful program
>    what are the measurements?  it was forced down everyone's throats.

I have to agree that he did not do himself a favor when talking abou the
'newest successful program...'

	- mark

>  YOu can communicate as long as you say the words that are
>  wanted to be heard.

This escaped me entirely. Ed, are you intimating that anyone is turning
a deaf ear on some subjects? I haven't seen any evidence of that.

-Jack

re: .247  Response from Chris Gillett

Thanks for the open and informative message, Chris.  This is what I call
communication!  I support your stand on bonus dividends.  I've been thinking
a lot about interest rates for savings lately, especially since Commerce Bank
in Worcester just let me start a 5.25% one year CD by clipping a coupon from
the newspaper and mailing it in.  I can't remember the last time DCU changed 
its rates.  If we don't do something soon, we're going to lose a lot more 
people.  I think bonus dividends will help this.

>> The recently enacted FIREA statutes give the goverment considerable teeth 
>> in tossing violators in prison and assessing heavy fines.

Wow, this is news.  Can you tell us more about this?  It sounds like it may
have helped us if it were enacted earlier.

I like the 14 point list of things that have happened in the credit union 
since the last election.  Given that we have an all-volunteer board, who all 
have full-time jobs, I think a list like this helps to put things into 
perspective for the rest of us.

The board attended a planning conference to set direction and goals for the
coming year.  In the past, it seems these goals were driven by Chuck.  Will we
ever see a report from this planning conference?  Will it make it to the
minutes of a board meeting?

>>   9.  The NCUA examiners who are responsible for DCU's annual examination
>>       visited the Board during a special meeting to introduce themselves
>>       to the new board and to discuss our present and future direction.

Is this something that normally happens?  I don't remember hearing it before.
If it is normal, I have to wonder how useful it is.  NCUA doesn't seem to do 
much in the way of oversight until things are really wrong.  Could it have 
been more of a case of them being visible?  Maybe they are reminding the 
board that there is some oversight, as in "Don't play games, since we are 
watching you."  I'd like to hear more about this!

I'd like to comment on the items mentioned that were continuations of previous
policy.  It always bothers me when newcomers take credit for results of 
previous policy.

>>  11.  DCU completed its updates and improvements to the ATM system.
>>  13.  DCU completed its updates and improvements to the Easy Touch system.

Could you explain these further?  Since these were started by previous 
management, could you comment on why this was done, what the benefits are, 
and whether or not it has been effective?  The board meeting minutes have
mentioned these as a one line topic, with no details.

>>  12.  DCU rolled out the new Check Cards in one of its most successful
>>       product rollouts to date.

Um, Chris, this doesn't sound like you wrote it!  It sounds like something a
DCU insider would say!  There are some who think the Check Card was poorly 
communicated, and not clearly justified.  Personally, I don't want my credit
union giving me "products", I'm looking for service.  And now that I 
understand how the card works, I still don't understand all the reasoning 
behind it.  If it is meant to be a substitute for a fee-free ATM card, it's 
not.  The board should make a statement supporting this new card, and 
explain how it fits into the overall goals of the credit union.

Elaine