Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    I have forwarded .0 to all DCU Directors.  Of course, Paul wouldn't be
    able to show up.  He could con-call though.
    

    
    
    On the same token Phil, what about Chuck coming and visiting us?
    I seem to remember the last time he visited (ZK - during his whirlwind
    tour as the new president) that he wanted to be more visible and 
    would "try" (there's that word again) to make the visits more regular. 
    
    Apparantly it's just another broken promise by Chuck...  I really think
    that *HE* should take more heat over this latest issue than all the
    BOD's...   I really don't believe he understands how people feel.
    
    
    John
    

I would also like to have Chuck visit the owners.

I think we are running down a road of seeing another special meeting and
Chuck needs to be responsive to the DEMANDS of its members.

For those who are interested, I would be willing to 'fly on my broom' to
a site local to ask and get a group of people together to talk about
what is wrong.

In other words, if Chuck will not talk to us, if the director's will not
visit us, then the members should get together and talk.  Maybe some
planning would occur, maybe not.

If anything we would get the problems out on the table and identified. 
A paper could then be presented to the membership outlining the
concerns.  If this matches membership expectations, then presented to
DCU.

	- mark

    
    RE: .1
    
    Paul doesn't have to.  These meetings are really something to "educate"
    the naive members of the board.  Paul is self-taught (BTW: so are you).
    
    ~Jon.

Don't you all get it?  We don't need to talk to Chuck.  We know where Chuck
stands on fees, and we know what his definition of relationship banking is. 
Chuck is not accountable to us as long as a majority of the Board of Directors
is willing to rubber stamp all of this proposals.  We need to talk to our
elected care takers, the ones who have let the fox do their job in guarding the
henhouse.

I'd personally like to have a member meeting in HLO, but if it is in MRO, I'll
do my best to get the folks from Hudsom over there.

Elaine

    
    I have already asked that Chuck go around to different sites and
    discuss the current fees with people.  But please remember, Chuck
    reports to the Board, the Board reports TO YOU.  The members cannot
    tell Chuck what to do.  I fail to see what Chuck will gain from these
    visits that he could not have acquired two years ago.
    
    The purpose of Member-Board meetings is to get the current Board in
    face to face contact with real live members, with real live questions
    and hopefully receive real live answers.  I believe Membership surveys
    are not the same thing as actual contact.  The last survey didn't ask
    "Do you oppose the implementation of fees?".  I would like to see the
    next membership-wide mailing include such a question though.
    

It would have been a lot easier back in April (or whenever this started), when
Chuck made his proposal of fees, if the BOD had said "Well, Chuck, this is a
nice proposal, but we don't really know how the members will feels about this. 
Why don't you give us a few weeks, so we can go out and talk to them?  We'll get
back to you."

The point at which elected representatives (as well as engineers) get in trouble
is when they think their own personal feelings are a good representation of
their constituency (or customer base).

If they thought it would be easier to push the fees through, and defend them
later (now), they will have another thing coming.

Before the meetings, I want to know who's seats will be open this year.

Elaine

>The point at which elected representatives (as well as engineers) get in
    >trouble
    
    I try!  Honest!
    
>It would have been a lot easier back in April (or whenever this started), when
    
    Much earlier.  The official vote was in April.
    
>Before the meetings, I want to know who's seats will be open this year.
    
    This year:  Lisa Ross, Paul Milbury, Phil Gransewicz.
    Next year:  Tanya Dawkins, Gail Mann.
    Then:       Paul Kinzelman, Tom McEachin.
    

    
    One day has passed...  No response from any of the other Directors yet.
    

    Playing a little devils advocate here, why should the directors have
    these meetings? In other words, what problem are you trying to solve
    with them? It seems like you want someone to convince someone of
    something.

    I'm assuming that the Board has had more than a few conversations about
    fees over the last 6-12 months. I'm assuming that Board members have a
    whole lot more information than I have. Given that, it seems unlikely
    that the Board will be convinced by logical argument from the members.
    (I'm assuming Phil and Paul tried that unsuccessfully already.) So
    what's left is emotion. The other possibility is that the Board may
    convince the members that they made the right decision. Somehow I
    don't think the mood at these meetings will be calm enough for that.

    So I'm unconvinced of the utility of such meetings at this time. What
    would I suggest? Reasonable question. I suggest that a lot of the people
    who are upset about these fees talk to Board members one on one. There
    are several benefits of this.

    One is a calmer atmosphere because no one will be posturing for the
    audience. Also there will be less of a threatening towards Board
    members. As for being intimidated by Board members, well, if you're
    too intimidated to talk to them you should probably be looking to 
    replace them for that reason alone. I've found the Board members I've
    approached to be very approachable.

    An other benefit is that it should help prevent a "siege mentality."
    Mass meetings often cause the minority to draw closer together and
    more intransigent out of a feeling of self defense.

    Thirdly, statements in a one on one tend to be taken more seriously.
    This is because there isn't the peer pressure to "out bitch" the others
    in the group so one talks more from the heart.

    I really doubt that the members of the Board are unaware that people
    are upset. I don't think we need meetings to get that message across.
    I think that people can make logical arguments via mail, FAX, phone
    and one on one conversations. Yes, the Board has to do more to provide
    information, justification, and to reduce uncertainty. I've suggested
    a "frequently asked questions" document which I think has a real
    possibility of happening and helping a lot of people.

    I've not made up my mind to accept this current situation and I'm still
    asking questions. But I've been to a lot of public meetings and
    hearings over the last few years, but I can probably count the number 
    of times they've changed my opinion on the thumbs of one foot. :-)

    		Alfred

    I would be in favor of a meeting.  I think that SOME of the BOD needs
    to remember who they are working for.  When the DCU starts fees then
    what is there to keep me doing business with them, my bank around the
    corner is much easier for me to get money at.

    Alfred, one on one conversations are fine too.  But time doesn't allow
    for this and it sounds like members aren't getting through to all the
    Directors (form letter response not counted).  If the current problem 
    is that DCU members are just plain opposed to Fee-based Banking at 
    their credit union, then they should know why their Directors have 
    decided otherwise.  The more contact Directors have with the membership
    the better IMO.  They are supposed to *representing* them on the Board.  
    Shouldn't the membership be able see if that is that case?  What you
    describe sounds like a badly organized and run meeting, which nobody is
    proposing.
    

    
>What you
>    describe sounds like a badly organized and run meeting, which nobody is
>    proposing.
    
    Glad to hear it. But somehow when I put DCU and meeting in the same
    sentance I flash back to the special meeting. :-)
    
    		Alfred

Well, I'm a wannabe director, so let me throw in my 2 cents:    
    
>    I'd ask any director current or want-to-be how they propose to
>    understand what members want.  any director care to comment?
>    
>    ed
    
Of course, I'd send you mail, Ed!   :-)

The membership spoke with great clarity when they signed petitions
calling for a recision in fees on basic services.  They spoke with
great clarity at the Special Meeting when the vote was taken about
the recision question.  The bottom line is that one needs to remember
history in order to avoid repeating it.  

It is too easy to get elected, disappear into the board room, and
fall into the "management knows all" trap.  I think it's critical
for directors to get out there, meet and talk with members, and take
advantage of Digital's electronic network to communicate with more
far-flung members.  DCU's membership is not the least bit afraid to
tell someone exactly how they feel...all that's required is for
someone to care enough to ask.  This requires a serious time commitment,
though, and the willingness to spend time outside of work and outside
of the board room doing DCU's work.

If you go back and look at all the campaign statements from the Special
Election (mine included...), you'll see that *everybody* ran on a platform
of "open,. honest, communication."  Thus far, I've not seen this put into
practice by any director save twop - Phil and Paul.  

Understanding what the members want is straightforward - and it does
require open and honest communication.  It also requires someone 
willing to put the effort into opening the channels.

./chris

    re: .15
    
    I think that Lisa DeMauro Ross' offer to answer phone calls and
    including a schedule of when to call is commendable.  I feel this is
    evidence of her desire to improve communication.
    
    Steve

>                      <<< Note 703.16 by NACAD::SHERMAN >>>
>
>    I think that Lisa DeMauro Ross' offer to answer phone calls and
>    including a schedule of when to call is commendable.  I feel this is
>    evidence of her desire to improve communication.
>    
	It's too late to close the barn door when the horses are already out.
	As far as the BoD is concerned, fees are a done deal and all they are
	offering is an "opportunity" for us to hear why they did it that way.

	No matter that fees are not wanted by the membership; no matter that
	the whole matter was done under cover.....

	It seems strange to me that DCU loses 2.5 million on these "deadbeats",
	but has, so far, shown not one shred of evidence to back this figure up.

	I don't want some doublespeak on why a BoD member voted this way (I do
	believe that is all that it will be because of the total disregard of
	the membership in the first place!), and I firmly believe that any
	person aligning themselves to a platform (RC) should adhere to that
	platform.  If they change their mind, that is all right, BUT LETS BE 
	OPEN ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE AND NOT TRY TO HIDE IT UNTIL AFTER
	THE FACT!

re: .17

I agree with what you said about listening to members after the fact.  As a
credit union that listens to members, the minutes of the April meeting could
have been acceptably redacted until a mailing which listed _proposed_ fees for
comment from the membership.  Listening at this point would be appropriate. 
That would go along with the Board of Directors saying "Thanks for your
proposal, President Cockburn.  We will poll the members on your proposed fees
and get back to you in a few months."

Imagine if President Clinton proposed a new tax bill in secret to Congress, who
then passed it in closed session, and they told the American people about it as
a done deed less than three months before it would take effect!  Visions of a
tea party come to mind, which in this case could be shredded DCU checks dumped
in a pile at DCU headquarters.  :-)

Not to mention the fastest recall election and impeachment proceedings ever seen
in our history!

Elaine

  I would be real surprised if you got $.01!!!  What they would do is have a
large severance pay to the employee's.


  I expect that the next secret thing the board should start working on is 
holding their meetings in Tahiti or Hawaii.   Since they can obviously do
anything they under the guise of confidentiality they sure ought to be able
to reward themselves!!!  The last board did this legally...  

  It's becoming obvious that no one here is going to do much about this whole
mess so they are going to get away with it!

  I have already asked that question and all would be willing to sign a
petition.  The real question is have the new by-laws been approved which
reduces the number of members who must sign the petition???

>>  It's becoming obvious that no one here is going to do much about this whole
>>mess so they are going to get away with it!

Definitely get people who are upset with this to write to the directors ...
encourage them to do so ... the addresses are in 5.1 or c/o DCU.

If that doesn't work, then a special meeting is necessary ... what to
include on that meeting agenda ?

	1) No new fees, no relationship banking, no VISA card fees ?

	2) New election of Directors ?

	3) Replace the person responsible for forcing this on DCU again
			(viz the president)  ?

Hmmm ...  

	I'm sure there are lots of things that can be done ...  Now the
question is, will enough complaints fix these things ? OR Will the threat
of another special meeting with that kind of agenda fix these things ?
OR Will it take another special meeting ?

So ... the place to start is to WRITE.  There are directors who sincerely
believe that the MAJORITY of DCU membership wants this interpretation of
FAIRNESS.

Stuart

    The best way for this to be resolved, would be for the BoD to
    reconsider it's vote on fees. I wrote, asking them if they were
    personnally willing to do so.  I got one form letter from one BoD
    member, and a call from DCU to see if they can answer any questions. 
    Well, since DCU can't answer the question asked, I inquired:
    
    	when were fees first proposed? the first answer was April, when I
    pointed out that tat was when the vote was, she told me she would get
    back to me.
    
    	I was also pointed to the BOD communication posted by Lisa, for the
    BoDs position.  I asked if that statement was made on behalf of the
    BoD, and if so, was it voted on.  She will get back to me.
    
    I realize that the BoD can not reply to all mail messages.  But, they
    know I am concerned.
    
    So, what to do, special meeting, pull accounts, take it (the fees) and 
    wait for the next imposition of fees... I have no doubt something will 
    be done, the question is, what is in the best interest of our credit 
    union. Those that I talk to in the DC area, are ready and willing to
    sign a petition.  Question is, why does it seem we need to 'impose' our
    will on the BoD, assuming the majority is against fees.
    
    Finally, I believe the vast majority of members will not see fees. So,
    I must deduse tat more fees are in the future.  I see no reason to go
    down this slippery slop.
    
    
    Oh, DCU explained that the $2.5M figure is from some indepndant 
    organisation that studies these things (she explained it, I just
    couldn't believe it, and so don't remember it very well).  We have 
    someting like 7,600 accounts in question, which relate to a $2.5 
    million loses.  Being in the DC area, really get tired of meaningless 
    figures used to justify just about anything, well, maybe in the case, 
    ANYTHING!  I'm disapointed the BoD decided to buy it, hook, line and
    sinker.
    
    Mark

    The number of 2.5 mill is obviously an extension of some mythical
    numbers that apply to generic bankingoperations and costs of
    processing and so on.
    
    I am very perturbed that when you asked if they would be personally
    willing to reconsider that it was referred to DCU communications to
    reply.  What is wrong with these people ??? Obviously DCU
    communications cannot reply on behalf of the directors personal
    requests.
    
    This is ridiculous.
    
    I think there are a few active people who will be organizing something
    before too long, but in the interim, make sure that everyone you know
    who is against this lets the Directors know and if they don't want
    your experience (and mine and others with DCU communications who have
    obviously been primed as to what to answer) say so and indicate you
    would like their personal response.
    
    Stuart

    DCU called back with answers, very quickly in fact.
    
    The issue of fees was first introduced (to the board) last year, at 
    a DCU planning session.
    
    The message posted by BoD, was drafted and posted with the full
    knowledge of the BoD.  All members of the BoD had an opportunity to
    provide input.  I do not know if the BoD voted on the message, nor what
    the vote was, if a vote was taken.
    
    I realize the BoD is trying to do the best thing for our credit
    union.  I call on the board to reconsider the imposition of fees, or
    atleast solicit the opinion of the membership.  This could be done by
    postponing the imposition of fees until after the next annual meeting
    (cheapest method)...

    
RE: .19    
    
>    a question I have for Phil [I believe he is out of town for a few days]
>    If/when DCU were to break up, how are the assets divided?   Would it be
>    by the current deposits a shareholder has, or would it go back over
>    the years to current and previous shareholders?
    
    After paying all liabilities, I would imagine it would be divided among
    the current shareholders according to the shares they hold ($5 per share).
    
RE: .26
                              -< fees intro'd last year >-
    
>    The message posted by BoD, was drafted and posted with the full
>    knowledge of the BoD.  All members of the BoD had an opportunity to
>    provide input.  I do not know if the BoD voted on the message, nor what
>    the vote was, if a vote was taken.
    
    I was aware the Memo was being drafted.  I chose not to participate.  I
    asked that any Board Memo sent on the subject clearly indicate that the
    decision was not unanimous.  A concall at 8am last Monday was to
    discuss the memo but since I had no input to offer and I was driving to
    work at the time, I didn't participate.  I don't know if a vote was
    taken.  Is that important?