| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1807.1 | | ACOSTA::MIANO | John - NY Retail Banking Resource Cntr | Tue Mar 17 1992 17:20 | 5 |
| I'm sure glad I took all of my money out of there last month. If it looks
like a skunk, walks, like and skunk, and sounds like a skunk it probably
smells like a skunk as well.
John
|
| 1807.2 | | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates next week | Tue Mar 17 1992 18:19 | 5 |
|
RE: .1
But hopefully you kept that last $5 in so you could vote to change
things...
|
| 1807.3 | correction posted in 1807.8 | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Tue Mar 17 1992 19:13 | 5 |
| I've just talked to Ray Humphrey in Digital Security. He confirms that
Digital had an *inquiry, not an investigation, in 1986, and says the
results are confidential so that he can't give me any more information.
He did say that Kinzelman, Gransewicz, et al. do have copies of the
results of the inquiry.
|
| 1807.4 | | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates next week | Tue Mar 17 1992 21:13 | 32 |
|
My apologies for posting this reply to the previous reply since the
same reply is also in DCU. Just wanted to make sure you read the
answer in case you don't monitor DCU the conference.
================================================================================
Note 499.14 1986 Report 14 of 14
GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "I'm voting for REAL CHOICE cand" 23 lines 17-MAR-1992 17:16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> I've just talked to Ray Humphrey in Digital Security. He confirms that
> Digital had an *inquiry, not an investigation, in 1986, and says the
> results are confidential so that he can't give me any more information.
Could he please explain the difference between an inquiry and an
investigation? The real questions is what did the 'inquiry' SAY. What
were the findings?
And why is the result of an 'inquiry' about DCU confidential?? As
shareholders of DCU aren't we entitled to know what that report says?
What are they trying to hide or who are they trying to protect? Do
what DCU does, redact names and indentities but release the report.
> He did say that Kinzelman, Gransewicz, et al. do have copies of the
> results of the inquiry.
Mr. Humprey is lieing to you. We have told him repeatedly that we do
*not* have a copy of the report. If we *did* have the report why would
we be asking him for it? And rest assured, if we did have the actual
report, YOU WOULD TOO, right here in this conference. We have no
vested interest in protecting this report.
|
| 1807.5 | What is the Legal Relationship - DEC & DCU | FHOPAS::JAMBE::MCMULLEN | | Tue Mar 17 1992 22:58 | 15 |
| Small Nit Questions -
If the DCU is an independant entity from Digital Equipment Corporation,
operated "at arms length" from DEC, then:
1) What authority or juristiction does DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORP SECURITY
have in investigating and/or inquiring into activities of an
external, non-DEC corporation?.
2) Who requests, authorizes, and directs DEC corporate resources
during such investigations/inquiries?
3) What is the legal relationship between DCU and Digital?
|
| 1807.6 | We've wanted to know about those things for some time now | 16BITS::DELBALSO | I (spade) my (dog face) | Wed Mar 18 1992 00:01 | 6 |
| re: .5
Hardly nits. I think those are very critical questions. You'll pardon me
if I don't hold my breath while we await the answers.
-Jack
|
| 1807.7 | No small nits in the bunch | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates next week | Wed Mar 18 1992 00:17 | 27 |
|
RE: .5
> If the DCU is an independant entity from Digital Equipment Corporation,
>operated "at arms length" from DEC, then:
I believe John Sim's letter sent to DCU members on Monday pretty well
dispels this myth.
> 1) What authority or juristiction does DIGITAL EQUIPMENT CORP SECURITY
> have in investigating and/or inquiring into activities of an
> external, non-DEC corporation?.
The problem is that both of them have DIGITAL in their names.
Sometimes people don't understand the difference and complain to the
wrong people.
> 2) Who requests, authorizes, and directs DEC corporate resources
> during such investigations/inquiries?
Probably Corp. Security or somebody high up.
> 3) What is the legal relationship between DCU and Digital?
Lately this is the $64,000 question. I seems to depend on the day, issue,
and people involved.
|
| 1807.8 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Wed Mar 18 1992 03:03 | 8 |
| Ray Humphrey has sent me a correction to 1807.3.
He says that the inquiry is privileged and confidential, and
that the "results" are not held by Kinzelman, Gransewicz, et al.
That may very well have been my error in transcribing the substance of
the telephone call. I tried to get it right, but something clearly
went awry.
|
| 1807.9 | | ICS::CROUCH | Jim Crouch 223-1372 | Wed Mar 18 1992 10:16 | 7 |
| This whole business sounds like a good story for Morley and the
crew of 60 minutes. He's in town doing a story on the State Senate
President Billy Bulger. Maynard is a short drive out from Southie.
They could get 2 of the 3 weekly stories without much travel expense.
Jim C.
|
| 1807.10 | | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates next week | Wed Mar 18 1992 11:50 | 14 |
|
RE: .8
> Ray Humphrey has sent me a correction to 1807.3.
Thank you for that correction.
> He says that the inquiry is privileged and confidential, and
> that the "results" are not held by Kinzelman, Gransewicz, et al.
Hmmm, "privileged and confidential"? So are we to believe that nobody
in DEC has seen this inquiry? If people HAVE seen it, who has seen it?
At what level does one have to be to see it?
|
| 1807.11 | New ground broken every day | STUDIO::HAMER | Bertie Wooster loves George Bush | Wed Mar 18 1992 15:43 | 14 |
| >>He says that the inquiry is privileged and confidential, and
>>that the "results" are not held by Kinzelman, Gransewicz, et al.
And under what doctrine is this inquiry privileged? Doctor-Patient?
Lawyer-Client? Secrets of the Confessional? Corrupt President-
Incriminating audio tapes? House Schill-Embarrassed/incriminated
management?
The sacred trust between the investigator and investigatee? That *is*
a new one to me.
It is very hard to put this in a neutral, much less a positive, light.
John H.
|
| 1807.12 | privileged info.? | BTOVT::CACCIA_S | the REAL steve | Wed Mar 18 1992 20:02 | 14 |
|
RE.11 and a few others.
Under what authority is the inquiry information confidential? You may
have it closer to the truth than you think. If there was in fact an
inquiry into any function of the DCU and/or it's officers, personnel or
activities, AND , there MAY be a POSSIBILITY of litigation or charges
then the information in that report would be confidential under the
right to privacy act and by attorney client privilege.
********PLEASE NOTE THE KEY WORD ----- AND, MAY, POSSIBLE. I claim no
knowledge of anything that went on. This reply is conjecture based on
past experience as an investigator in an unrelated field.
|
| 1807.13 | The missing link!!! | DEMOAX::SMITH_B | | Thu Mar 19 1992 00:57 | 7 |
| If I remember correctly, the DCU is made up of Digital employees,
most Digital employees do banking on company time, and Digital
gives the DCU free floor space. Could that make Digital and the
DCU 'connected' ??
Brad.
|
| 1807.14 | | INDUCE::SHERMAN | ECADSR::Sherman DTN 223-3326 | Thu Mar 19 1992 01:58 | 12 |
| According to what has been posted here, it was an INQUIRY, not an
INVESTIGATION. Also, Digital Security is in the business of checking
on matters regarding Digital, not other companies such as DCU.
I'm not clear on the difference between an inquiry and an
investigation, but my understanding is that an inquiry is intended to
be considerably less formal and less intensive than an investigation.
Given the mission of Digital Security, the inquiry was probably
intended to be limited in its scope of query regarding DCU and to be
focused more on Digital.
Steve
|
| 1807.15 | | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates next week | Thu Mar 19 1992 04:05 | 8 |
|
Enough word games please. Haven't we already gone down this road with
loans and 'investments'? The real issue is what was discovered, if
anything. Who HAS read the report at Digital and/or DCU?
Given the recent statement by Mr. Sims that DCU is an employee benefit,
why wouldn't DEC security possibly become involved? Or is this the day
that DCU is a 'seperate entity'? ;-)
|
| 1807.16 | | BEING::EDP | Always mount a scratch monkey. | Thu Mar 19 1992 13:19 | 6 |
| What motivation does John Sims have for this? Does Sims benefit from
DCU in any way other than ordinary membership? Do any of his friends
or other connections benefit somehow?
-- edp
|
| 1807.17 | | SCHOOL::RIEU | Support DCU Petition Candidates | Thu Mar 19 1992 14:22 | 3 |
| Well, from reading his letter, Mr. Sims obviously got to read the
committe's report before any other members did. How did this happen?
Denny
|
| 1807.18 | | SSDEVO::EGGERS | Anybody can fly with an engine. | Thu Mar 19 1992 22:01 | 15 |
| Re: .16 by EDP
Does John Sims benefit? I don't know. I don't know who is friends
really are. I presume that he is on friendly terms with the other VPs,
one of whom is running for the BoD. I presume he also knows Digital's
Director of Public Relations, who still is the DCU BoD Chairman. Do
those people benefit? I hope not, but power has been called an
aphrodisiac on many occasions.
I would be much happier with this whole situation if there were some
openness. We can't even find out who are the members of the secret
committee behind the "Qualified Choices" flier. Is John Sims a member
of that group? I don't know.
Do you?
|
| 1807.19 | | ACOSTA::MIANO | John - NY Retail Banking Resource Cntr | Fri Mar 20 1992 02:19 | 21 |
| RE: <<< Note 1807.2 by GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates next week" >>>
> But hopefully you kept that last $5 in so you could vote to change
> things...
I did. I just got my ballot today and I noticed a very interesting thing
about the nominated candidates: their qualifications are almost the same
(MBA/lawyer, Finance etc.) While individually the nominated candidates
are all well qualified, all together as a group the slate stinks. What
ever happened to "Valuing Diversity"? We don't need 7 finance people on
the BoD. 1 or 2 would do just nicely.
The someone ought to extend to the nominating committee the
Maggot-Filled Road Kill award. I would also like to give my
congratulations to those people who went to the effort of petitions so
that we could have, at the the opportunity, for a representive BoD.
In the future DCU needs a nominating committee that can find at least
one qualified Software Engineer, or Field Service Tech, or Secretary, or
factory worker.
John
|
| 1807.20 | Cape Cod Times article on 1986 Report | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates next week | Fri Mar 20 1992 03:41 | 195 |
| <<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
-< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 505.0 Cape Cod Times article on 1986 Report No replies
GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "I'm voting for REAL CHOICE can" 189 lines 20-MAR-1992 00:27
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Permission to forward or re-post this note is granted. However, the
original note header and names at the end of the note must be
retained. The contents of the note may be shared with any DCU member.]
[Re-printed without permission from the Cape Cod Times, March 19,1992]
"Digital had tip-off in '86 about bad loans to Cape"
By Susan Milton
Staff Writer
Millions of dollars of risky Cape real estate loans were first
investigated in 1986 by the Digital Equipment Corp., according to
investigators at the international computer company.
Checking out a tip about the Cape loans, the investigators were
surprised to learn that the primary lender was their own credit union,
the Digital Employees' Federal Credit Union, based in Maynard.
Their report, intended as a warning, was rejected by credit
union leaders, the former Digital employees said.
Now the credit union has lost millions of dollars because of such
loans, now known to be faked and channelled through the closed
Barnstable Community Federal Credit Union in Hyannis.
Due to the loan losses, the Hyannis credit union was taken over
a year ago and closed last June by federal regulators. Last April,
the Digital credit union fired Richard Mangone, its president since
1983.
Mangone and other Barnstable credit union insiders secretly siphoned
millions of dollars in loans shared by the two credit unions between
1987 and 1990, according to two civil lawsuits.
Digital's 1986 report has resurfaced to draw new attention to the
$345 million credit union, the largest in New England, and its parent
computer company.
The Cape Cod Times has learned:
o The Federal Bureau of Investigation has supoenaed and obtained the
1986 report.
o The 1986 investigation and report was denied last week by Digital
credit union chairman, Mark Steinkrauss, also Digital's director
of investor relations. He described "an informal inquiry" in 1986
that revealed Mangone was serving on the Barnstable credit union
board that developed and sold the large loans to his own credit
union.
o A Digital lawyer, by letter and telephone, last year warned two
former Digital employees to keep quiet about the company's 1986
investigation of Cape loans.
Those early loans, all repaid, included $2.8 million for the 41-lot
Yankee Village commercial/residential subdivision in Brewster and a
$2.7 million mortgage for the Sands Motor Lodge and Greenbrier Motel
on Route 132 in Hyannis.
Later, between 1987 and 1990, Mangone led the Digital credit union
to invest another $18 million in 12 similar loans for Cape motels
and real estate projects, all now in foreclosure.
The 1986 report has resurfaced during a campaign that will decide
the future management of the Digital credit union, created as an
employee benefit for Digital employees.
Under fire for months over the Cape loans and other operating
policies, the entire Digital credit union board, many of whom are
high-level Digital managers, is being replaced.
The unusual election, involving 81,000 voters at various worksites
in 83 countries, was mandated last November at a special meeting
called by rebelling depositors. The ballots were mailed March 14,
with results due at the credit union's April 23 annual meeting.
At the heart of the campaign are the Cape Cod loans. The primary
focus according to board critics, is not the fraud nor the credit
union's losses. It was the board decision in 1985 to make such
loans at all.
"The issue is that our credit union funds were being funnelled
into what many consider to be risky investments, land development
on the Cape.", said candidate Phil Gransewicz, a Digital engineer
and board critic.
Digital investigators, also credit union members, had the same
reaction in 1986. That is why the 1986 report was an early warning
to the board about its lending policies.
Confirmation about Digital's 1986 investigation came from two
former Digital employees. Although known to Digital, both men asked
the Cape Cod Times not to publish their names.
In further confirmation, Digital lawyer William Sutton's letter
warned against disclosing information about a 1986 investigation.
Sutton contacted the two former employees, first by telephone, then by
Express Mail, just before the November debate over the board's removal.
Because of such warnings, each refused to comment on the 1986
investigation and report. But the two former employees said there was
no reason to protect Sutton's letters, which puizled and angered them.
The report, one former employee said, was not about Digital at all,
but about the credit union, a seperate corporate entity, which had shown
no interest in the report's contents in 1986.
He asked, "Why is Digital keeping this from the (credit union)
membership which has a right to know if people (board members) running
for office were delinquent in their duties or not?"
Sutton did not respond to a request for comment. In a later letter
to the two men, he said his purpose was not to intimidate the two former
employees but to remind them of their legal and professional
obligations.
In a telephone interview last week, Steinkrauss downplayed the 1986
events by saying, "I'll say again - and I am in a position to know,
there was no investigation. There was no report. There was no
subpoena. There was none."
He did remember meeting with Digital management in 1986 over an
anonymous phone call. He said the call "suggested some sort of
impropriety and I'm not even sure it was with (Digital credit union)
but with Barnstable."
Told about Sutton's reference to the 1986 investigation, Steinkrauss
then recalled there had been "an informal inquiry but all the
references were to the Barnstable credit union."
Steinkrauss suggested that the newspaper was being fed distorted
information by board candidates who were politicking or trying to
tarnish past or present board members. He also suggested that the
likely sources about the 1986 investigation had ulterior motives.
He said, "I can't tell you the circumstances under which they left,
(their jobs) because that would be a violation of trust."
One former employee said they retired early, by choice, when
Digital offered to buy out their pensions. Known, not anonymous,
sources started the investigation. Both men said that an in-depth
investigation resulted in a lengthy report about the early loans.
The Cape Cod Times also confirmed, through non-Digital sources, that
the report had been obtained by the FBI by subpoena from Digital.
Through the 1986 inquiry, Steinkrauss added, the Digital credit
union board did learn its president, Richard Mangone, was also
serving on the Barnstable board. The board asked Mangone to sever
his Barnstable relationship, Steinkrauss said, because "he was
drawing his salary, after all, from DCU."
Mangone complied, but continued to make weekly visits to the
Barnstable credit union to prepare the fraudulent loan applications
that he then presented and sheparded through a deceived Digital credit
union board, according to a pending lawsuit.
Steinkrauss even visited the Cape investments on trips to the Cape,
he said. He is among four Digital credit union board members who
own second homes or timeshare units on the Cape. He did not know if
other board members made similar visits.
In another change after the 1986 report, the Digital Credit Unions
participation, usually 75% to 90%, was concealed. Its participation
was denied, in 1987 and early 1991 by Mangone and other Barnstable
credit union officials interviewed then by the Cape Cod Times. The
loan's were recorded in the Barnstable credit union's name.
The Digital credit union is now suing Mangone, as well as Robert
Cohen of Newton, former counsel for both credit unions; Cohen's
Wellesley law firm, Cohen & Kushner; Rockport developer Ambrose
Devaney; Barnstable developer and credit union founder James K. Smith;
and Centerville appraiser Paul C. Brown.
Its suit claims that each man played a role in a scheme to locate
properties, fake loan and legal documents, recruit "straw borrowers",
inflate property values and siphon money for personal use.
About last year's revelations, Steinkrauss said, "I know that I was
deeply saddened to see that the trust we had put in Mr. Mangone was
broken. It was a blow to all of the board and all of the staff and
certainly all the membership at Digital (credit union)."
Claiming $47 million of fraud at the Barnstable credit union,
federal regulators are suing Mangone, Smith and Cohen, as well as
former Barnstable credit union leaders Michael O'Neil, a lawyer now
living in Scituate, and Bruce Harris, now living in Florida.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
|
| 1807.21 | Makeup of the Nominating Committee | SALEM::BERUBE_C | Claude, G. | Fri Mar 20 1992 10:26 | 158 |
| Rep to <<< Note 1807.19 by ACOSTA::MIANO "John - NY Retail Banking Resource Cntr" >>>
>The someone ought to extend to the nominating committee the
>Maggot-Filled Road Kill award. I would also like to give my
>congratulations to those people who went to the effort of petitions so
>that we could have, at the the opportunity, for a representive BoD.
>In the future DCU needs a nominating committee that can find at least
>one qualified Software Engineer, or Field Service Tech, or Secretary, or
>factory worker.
Part of the problem was the make up of the Nominating Committee (see
below) of the total 3 members, 1 was a current DEC employee, 1 was a
EX-DEC employee (Retired) and the third member a DCU Employee. While
on the face of it that doesn't look bad because you have a
representative from all 3 categories that make up the DCU membership.
The bad part was they were all high level DEC/DCU employees. Now I
don't have any personal gripe with any of the three members that made
up the committee mind you. What I'm getting at is as long as the
Nominating Committee is made up of high level folks, you will never get
a Board of Directors made up of a TRUE cross section of the DCU
membership and the Representation/Accountability that goes along with
it.
Maybe if we get a chance to have several of the Petition Candidates
(whether Real Choice or not) or the lone Nominated Candidate, one of
the changes I would like to see if a Nominating Committee made up of at
least 5 DCU members from a greater cross-section of the membership.
Which by the way was also one of the issues concerning the current DCU
BoD makeup etc.
Claude
PS I found it odd how the little brouchure with all the candidates
write-up, one page 1 were we have the Nominating Committee Report, We
aren't provided with the names of all 3 members who made up the
committee.
<<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
-< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 413.0 DCU POSTING: NOMINATING COMMITTEE OVERVIEW 80 replies
BEIRUT::SUNNAA 114 lines 7-JAN-1992 09:26
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: DCU
Date: 06-Jan-1992
Posted-date: 06-Jan-1992
Subject: #2 Nom Comm/Products/Special Meeting
DIGITAL EMPLOYEES' FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
DCU 1991-92 BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL ELECTION
NOMINATING COMMITTEE OVERVIEW
Each year a credit union's Chairman of the Board appoints a
Nominating Committee for its annual elections. This year's
nominating committee possesses a diverse knowledge of
finance, business, credit unions and human resources:
Phyllis Lengle/Chairperson
Business Unit Management Reporting Manager/Central
Finance Group
Phyllis has been with Digital Equipment Corporation for 3
years and has extensive experience in management and
corporate finance. She has an MBA from the Wharton School,
University of Pennsylvania, and a BA in Economics and
Political Science from Millersville University.
Ms. Lengle served on DCU's Nominating Committee in 1990.
Anita Cohen
DCU member
Anita is a retired Digital Equipment Corporation employee
with 12 years of management experience. Her position as
Programs Manager in Digital's Personnel and Corporate
Personnel organizations challenged her with the management of
fair and equitable Personnel policies and practices. She has
a BS in Education from Boston University.
Ms. Cohen was a candidate for DCU's Board of Directors in
1989.
Chuck Cockburn
DCU President/CEO
Chuck has over 20 years of credit union experience including
10 years with the National Credit Union Administration
(NCUA), the federal agency governing all credit unions. He
has 10 years of experience as president/CEO of two other
large federal credit unions.
Mr. Cockburn has an MBA from George Washington University and
a BS from Frostberg State College.
INTERVIEW SCHEDULE/CANDIDATE WRITE-UPS
Because there have been numerous requests to increase the
number of words in candidate write-ups, DCU's Nominating
Committee has voted to increase the limit to 150. They
believe this will allow candidates to adequately state their
position, assure readability and contain postage costs to
$.29 per member.
DCU has received 43 applications for the 1992 Special
Election. All applicants will be interviewed on January 7th
or January 11th. (2 members of the current DCU Board of
Directors are seeking re-election and have submitted
applications.)
TERMS FOR BOARD POSITIONS
Terms for DCU's Board of Directors will be staggered as
follows:
1. The two (2) candidates receiving the highest number of
votes will be elected for a three (3) year term.
2. The three (3) candidates receiving the next highest number
of votes will be elected for a two (2) year term.
3. The two (2) candidates receiving the next highest number
of votes will be elected for a one (1) year term.
For example:
# of votes term
Candidate A 10 3 years
Candidate B 9 3 years
Candidate C 8 2 years
Candidate D 7 2 years
Candidate E 6 2 years
Candidate F 5 1 year
Candidate G 4 1 year
Candidate H 3 -
Candidate I 2 -
Candidate J 1 -
Under our bylaws, all elections are by plurality vote. In
order to comply with our bylaw requirement that terms be
staggered, the above procedure has been adopted. This
procedure was suggested by the National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA).
If you have questions about the Special Election, please
contact Patti D'Addieco, Assistant Marketing Director, at
DTN/223-6735 or 508/493-6735, ext. 239.
|
| 1807.22 | | SCHOOL::RIEU | Support DCU Petition Candidates | Fri Mar 20 1992 11:57 | 4 |
| What I find odd about this nominating process is that one of the
candidates now running by petition was, in the past, nominated by the
committee. Why, all of a sudden, is he no longer qualified?
Denny
|
| 1807.23 | Let's not get the two topics all tangled up... | SCAACT::AINSLEY | Less than 150 kts. is TOO slow | Fri Mar 20 1992 12:01 | 7 |
| Could we please keep the discussion of the election/nominating process in the
other DCU note and limit the discussion here to the news story concerning the
investigation/inquiry.
Thanks,
Bob Co-moderator DIGITAL
|
| 1807.24 | Some food for thought | GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ | I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates next week | Sat Mar 21 1992 15:53 | 87 |
|
In light of the recent Cape Cod Times article and the revelation of the
existence of the 1986 report, I feel I should post a note that I authored
in the SMAUG::DCU conference. I believe it raises some very pertinent
questions that need to be asked as we are selecting people for the DCU
Board of Directors. Any replies would probably be better in the DCU
conference though.
<<< SMAUG::USER$944:[NOTES$LIBRARY]DCU.NOTE;5 >>>
-< DCU >-
================================================================================
Note 500.0 Independence to Act 3 replies
GUFFAW::GRANSEWICZ "I'm voting for REAL CHOICE cand" 72 lines 17-MAR-1992 01:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independent: "not looking to others for one's opinions or for guidance
in conduct"
This is a note about independence. It is written with the events
of the last several months in mind as well as all of the current
goings on regarding the election.
Depending on the issue at hand and the people involved, Digital and
DCU have what can only be described as a on-again, off-again
relationship. Some days they are described as being seperate entities,
while today we find that DCU is an employee benefit deserving the
attention of a Digital VP and thousands of Digital dollars.
DCU's board has always been firmly controlled by senior Digital
managers. There has been little or no interference with this control.
Candidates have always been selected by the Nominating Comm. which is
selected by Chairman of the Board and follows the instructions given
to it by the Board. When Directors have resigned, the Board votes
on who the replacement is, in other words they are hand-picked. The
one exception to this was the time a lone petition candidate ran
about 5 years ago. I have spoken with him and his description of
what he went through in the process compares to what we are seeing
now, but on a smaller scale.
This very tight bond between Digital senior management and DCU has
VERY bad implications at this point in time. With the loss of
millions of dollars and the credit union posting a loss, Digital
senior managers find themselves in a light that is not one which
may be considered favorable. This undesirable situation may carry
over to the Digital side since they are senior managers in the
corporation. If you or I had been involved, the fallout would have
been much less.
Are there situations in the future (past or present also) in which
this very tight bond between DCU and Digital senior management may
force them to choose between what is right for the credit union and
what is right for Digital, our their career? Are senior Digital
managers free to fulfill roles as Directors without having to think
twice about their positions as Digital senior managers? One instance
that looms in the very near future is the possibility of collecting
on the $3 million bond on the current Board.
The following are facts. The DCU Board is bonded for $3 million. DCU
has refused to disclose the terms under which the credit union may
collect on this bond.
We have been told by the Board that "It is important to note that these
investigations [NCUA & DCU] have not implicated any other official or
employee of DCU." (Network, Oct. 1991) We have also been told by the
NCUA that "...the NCUA had not conducted nor had any plans to conduct
an investigation into the activities of current members of Digital
EFCU's board of directors.". (Letter from NCUA)
The questions are:
1. If elected to the Board, will Digital senior managers be unencumbered
to fully investigate the actions of the current Board to determine
the feasability of collecting on the $3 million bond?
2. Will personal or professional relationships play a role in deciding
what is in the best interest of the DCU membership, keeping in mind
that 20,000 DCU members are NOT Digital employees.
3. Are Digital senior managers capable of taking action as a Director
which may harm the reputation or image of other Digital senior
managers (and thus possibly Digital) if it is determined to be in
the best interest of DCU?
4. Are candidates for the Board, who are not Digital senior managers,
undesirable in that they may be unencumbered?
Much to think about...
|
| 1807.25 | More food, gulp? | ALOS01::MULLER | Fred Muller | Sun Mar 22 1992 14:29 | 2 |
| Does DEC itself bear any responsibility for what happened because of
the overlap of "officers"? I have not seen this question asked yet.
|