Conference 7.286::digital

re: .0, Phil

>    In your opinion, is the following mail message sent via U.S. mail to
>    DCU members an appropriate use of corporate resources?

Absolutely not. I wonder what the stockholders at large will say when the
story hits the Globe or the WSJ. (Especially since, having been sent to
all DEFCU members, it's not the least bit confidential.)

>    Of what benefit is this to Digital's bottomline?
    
Well, we may never know . . . 

-Jack

I don't know. If the DCU is considered an employee benefit then it seems
reasonable to send this letter. 

Being only half facetious; how much productivity has been lost to DEC from 
employees spending time discussing DCU's travails?  A well managed DCU would 
contribute to employee peace of mind and not hurt morale the way that the 
scandals have.

Just because we had a losing quarter is no reason to panic. There is one helluva
lot more money wasted on much less reasonable expenses than this one.

Alan

    
    RE: .2
    
    Interesting point.  The only time I have seen DCU portrayed as an
    'employee benefit' it is when DEC senior management wishes to make a
    statement prior to an election.  That has happened twice now.  Once
    prior to the Special Meeting and again, before the actual election.
    At other times I have been told that DCU is a 'seperate entity' when
    asking for Digital assistance.
    
    As for time spent, I guess we are just partaking of this 'employee
    benefit'.
    
    Can this statement at all be viewed as an attempt to influence the
    voters?  Whether DCU is or is not an employee benefit, is it 'the right
    thing to do' in an election?
    

    I don't know if this letter was the "right" thing but I don't feel that
    it is necessarily the "wrong" thing.  I don't think it will influence
    people's vote one way or the other, but it might cause people that
    would not have otherwise voted to vote.  Either way, I don't feel that
    it will influence the outcome of the DCU election.  If you have
    concerns about the intent of the letter, why not at least attempt to
    contact its author for clarification.
    
    Lastly, an expenditure of $25k does NOT equate to the need to lay off
    (TSFO) anyone additionally.  I object to your attempting to tie the
    Simm's letter (no matter what you feel his intent was) to TSFO. 
    Attempting to leverage an emotional issue to your own benefit is
    questionable, at best.    

    RE: .0, etc.
    
    What makes me curious is how many other DEC employees besides myself
    who are no longer DCU members received this letter??!!  I 'quit'
    the DCU a little over 1 yr ago.  
    
    Brian                            

    If the DCU is a DEC Benefit supported by a senior Digital manager, does
    the time spent discussing DCU issues in this Notes file come under the 
    heading "legitimate DEC business"?  
    
    As for Sims' letter, Now isn't that special!

	Anyone want to take a stab at how much money DEC shareholders
	lost due to company time and resources being used to try to
	oust the DCU BOD?  Were the petitions signed OFF of company
	property, off company time?

	As one of those that collected signatures for petitions at ZKO,
	I can state that these signatures were obtained on break or
	vacation time of the collectors, on the break time of the signers,
	in a non-work area (the ZKO cafeteria), as permitted by DEC P & P.
	I expect that other collectors of signatures operated in a similar
	fashion.


						Tom_K

                   
                   DCU as an employee Benefit?

Now this is a new twist - 

    If this were a benefit to employees,  I would expect that the company 
would be required to offer the "benefit" to all employees, at least within 
the U.S., due to U.S. country regulations, etc.  The U.S. government 
(present Congress excluded) tends to frown on selectively providing 
benefits to one group of people while excluding others.  Some could view 
this as discrimination.

    Example:  If you live south of the Mason-Dixon line, we will not provide  
              you with training.  All others can participate.

       or     If you U.S. mailing zip code is greater that 22000-xxxx you 
              will be excluded from company medical benefits.

These are of course extreme examples that do not exist within our company, 
and would unlikey be tolerated or allowed to exist.

Howeverm, consider the following:
       
       1) DCU services are not "extended" to all field employees.
       2) DCU refuses provide home mortgages outside GMA, CS, ALF.
        
While valid business reasons exist for not offering "full" DCU services 
outside selected geographic areas,  DCU should not be positioned as an 
employee benefit - unless it is offered on an equal basis to all employees.

Just my $.02 

    I put out the REAL CHOICES literature in Colorado Springs. I paid $30+
    (I can show you the receipts) for the copying, and it was distributed
    outside of my work hours.  And I had the permission of CXO Personnel to
    distribute the material.
    
    Actually, the single largest time consumer was folding the cafteria
    "tents" in three places and taping them together.  That activity fit in
    well with watching Saturday Night Live.

	Well in HLO someone stopped a co-worker in the hall, shook his
	hand, introduced himself and started talking about signatures
	(I don't remember if the guy had a clipboard in his hand).
	`HE' (my co-worker) was NOT on a break, vacation, etc.. and
	was be solicited.

    
    RE: .5
    
    I suggest you start looking at the reality of the situation.  Anything
    that subtracts from the bottomline of Digital while not contributing
    revenue is a net loss for the company.  The fact IS that people are
    losing their jobs all over this company. We are all being asked to do
    without, tighten our belts.  How does this letter and associated costs
    fit into all of the cost savings going on around the company?  People
    all over the company are being asked to do their part.  Is it too much
    to expect the senior management of Digital to do their part?  The cold
    cruel reality is that the average employee usually DOES pay in the end.
    You can chose to believe whatever suits you.
    

    
    RE: .12
    
    You should have informed the person that what he was doing was not
    within Digital P&P.  What you witnessed was clear solicitation.
    
    There are 2 petition candidates from HLO.  One signatures from the 
    petition drive.  I don't know where the other candidate got his.  But
    please don't think that we collected thousands of signatures in the
    office place and hallways.  The petition drives were announced ahead of
    time at many cafeteria locations.  With all the membership enthusiasm
    out there, the last thing we needed to do was scour the hallways for
    signatures.

    re: .11
    
    Same for me, only my copies cost me $37.80.
    
    Steve

    
    A few naive questions:
    
    	Are DCU employees DEC employees? (badges, benes, etc.)
    
    	Does DCU rent the floorspace for their banks from DEC?
    
    	rjc

>    	Are DCU employees DEC employees? (badges, benes, etc.)
    
    	No, DCU employees work for the DCU. They get their benefits
    and pay from the DCU. DCU employees who work in Digital facilities
    have DCU badges. They are regarded similarly to cafeteria workers
    with respect to access and security.

    		Alfred

    
>    	Does DCU rent the floorspace for their banks from DEC?
    
    No, the *credit union* does not pay rent to DEC.
    

    Given the amount of this companies resources wasted by the anti-DCU
    crowd's massive email and paper campaign I can't see how a neutral
    message of the form "this is important; please vote" could be objected
    to...
    

    Re the following;
    
    >       <<< Note 1809.19 by STAR::BOUCHARD "The enemy is wise" >>>
    >                   -< A bit hypocritical, methinks >-
    >
    >Given the amount of this companies resources wasted by the anti-DCU
    >crowd's massive email and paper campaign I can't see how a neutral
    >message of the form "this is important; please vote" could be objected
    >to...
    
    I think your name is Rich, Please correct me if I am wrong.  I just
    like to address people by their first names if I can.
    
    Rich,
    	It is obvious that you know something that most of us don't know. 
    How much money did the "ANTI-DCU CROWD'S MASSIVE EMAIL AND PAPER
    CAMPAIGN" cost the company?  It seems you now a lot here!  Please
    inform us!
    	You know, its comments that, that just get me upset.  You gave no
    substance to your claim.  Those "ANTI-DCU" types you talked about gave
    numbers about the mailing to the tune of 25K for the rights to the
    mailing list, and 25k for the stamps.  In my book 50k is more than I
    make in a year.  It means something to me.  How about you?  Wanna just
    hand out 50k and say it was nothing?  I didn't think so...
    
    	Now my question to you is;  why are you so down on those "ANTI-DCU"
    people?  As you can see I took your .19 note a little hard.  Personally
    I like the DCU and the ones you call "ANTI-DCU".  I think those you
    speak ill of, are trying to do a good job for the DCU.  Instead of
    fighting against those trying to help the DCU, why not try helping.
    
    Jim Morton
    
    

    Ah!  Ya gotta love it.  Folks who think they are doing the best they
    can to improve DCU are tagged "anti-DCU" ...  If I were "anti-DCU" I
    would have yanked my accounts long ago.  The possibility of making
    productive change is what kept me with DCU.  I've already sunk about
    $100 into this.  It ain't just about "free checking" anymore ...
    
    Steve

I suppose about 220 years ago the 'real choices' movement would have been
labeled as "anti-crown" or "anti-british".

Re: .19

I've read most of the verbage surrounding the 'real choices' folkes and I
would hardly call it 'anti-DCU' as much as I would label it
'pro-DCU-member'.

Like it or not, there is a groundswell in this nation (USA) to hold those
in power responsible for their actions. No longer will the masses
tolerate misuse of their hard-earned dollars.

Lee

>I suppose about 220 years ago the 'real choices' movement would have been
>labeled as "anti-crown" or "anti-british".
    
    	What does that make the British member of the Real Choices
    	movement? 	:-)
    

    re .19 and the replies . .
    
    Hang on a second!  No need to get personal here!  Having been in the
    middle of more than my share of controversy, I know first-hand how
    worked up we get over this kind of stuff.  But let's not lose our
    control in the process.
    
    This note has lots of negative comments about John Simms, or whatever
    his name is, and his use of DEC resources and hard-copy mailing on DEC
    letterhead to everyone.
    
    Ok, fine.
    
    But the point made in .19 is, the 'real choices' people are also using
    DEC resources to get their point across.  I got an electronic mail
    message campaigning for me to vote for the 'real choices' director
    slate a few days ago.  And I think I saw a note in here someplace with
    the same message.  I printed and saved it - it's up in my cabinet right
    next to the monthly bills so I'll remember what to do when it comes
    time to vote.
    
    But before we dump on the other guys for using DEC resources in their
    campaign, remember that the 'real choices' guys also use DEC resources
    for their campaign.
    
    So if you cut the other guys off, you also cut yourselves off and they
    win.
    
    Now, before the whole world gets mad at me, I want the 'real choices'
    folks to know, I'm on your side and I plan to vote for your slate of
    directors.  From what I can see, you guys are working hard to fix a
    situation that needs fixing.
    
    If you want to send me electronic mail about your point of view, fine. 
    And if the other guys want to send me mail on their point of view,
    that's fine too.  
    
    I will grant you, your electronic communication medium is lots less
    expensive than the mass paper mailing the other guys use.  But I have a
    hunch your medium is much more effective than the other guys'.
    
    - Greg

    
    May I interject some facts here?
    
    "Real Choices" candidates are not Vice-Presidents of this corporation. 
    They do not have the power to influence people the way a Digital
    Vice-President can influence people.
    
    "Real Choices" candidates are not sending out campaign materials in
    Digital envelopes and on Digital letterhead.  Note: I consider the
    Sim's letter to be campaign material that supports the Nominating
    Comm., which supports the nominated candidates.
    
    "Real Choices" candidates are as PRO-DCU as you will find.  What we are
    against is:
    
    	* the use of OUR credit union dollars for the betterment of those 
    	  who are not DCU members.
    
    	* misleading information and brochures issued by DCU.
    
    	* midnight changes to the Bylaws that restrict membership rights.
    
    Being against the policies and direction of the current board is not
    "ANTI-DCU."  There is a BIG difference.  The best part of being a member 
    of a credit union are the rights of ownership.  Please don't label 
    people who choose to exercise those rights and participate in the 
    credit union as 'anti' DCU.
    

		Yesterday I received an EMAIL `campaign' letter from
		a `Real Choices Candidate' on company time (3:17),
		via company resources (EMAIL), that interrupted company
		business (I stopped what I was doing to read the important
		mail message).  To imply that the anti-DCU movement uses
		~NO~ company resources is ludicrous.


	An interesting point, not related to the base note issue, but
    	perhaps reason for a NEW topic.

		In the campaign letter I received from the `Real
		Choices Candidate', the candidate made a statement
		about DCU in order to justify that candidate's placement
		on the BOD.  From personal experiences with the DCU, I
		strongly believe that claim to be untrue.

			Yup, I'll vote alright~

						Dan
                                       

.28>		In the campaign letter I received from the `Real
.28>		Choices Candidate', the candidate made a statement
.28>		about DCU in order to justify that candidate's placement
.28>		on the BOD.  From personal experiences with the DCU, I
.28>		strongly believe that claim to be untrue.

    Then talk specifics and we'll debate. I strongly believe that
    everything in the material generated and distributed by "REAL CHOICES"
    candidates is backed by hard facts, and that any of the "REAL CHOICES"
    candidates would rather change their positions than base them on
    fallacies.

    I'm willing to concede that all parties to this struggle are using
    corporate resources to some extent; the only reason it's gotten to this
    feverish pitch is because of our excellent network. It does rankle
    somewhat that we were at one time agonizing over how to raise $25,000
    from private donations to fund a letter that would bring real issues
    to light, only to watch John Sims dip with impunity into the corporate
    coffers to gloss over those very issues.

    But what really steams me is that John Sims attempted to use his
    position of power as a vice president of DEC to support the status quo
    at DCU. I would have no trouble with John Sims as a concerned
    individual DCU member entering the fray, but I have a real problem
    equating the actions of Vice President John Sims in this matter with
    "the right thing".

    One thing he has done is to make it very clear to me that in the
    prevailing climate within DCU today, some members are definitely more
    equal than others.

re: .28

I'm not aware of any 'ANTI-DCU' movement.  Could you enlighten me?

Bob

    Re: .19
    
    This PRO-DCU person is also pro REAL CHOICES.
    
    For your information, I spent just under $50 at Kinko Copy for all the
    copies I placed around CXOn and CXNn.  I'll show you the receipts if
    you like.

>	Given the amount of this companies resources wasted by the anti-DCU
>	crowd's 

	By this I assume you are referring to the current DCU Board of 
	directors, under whose leadership the DCU has lost the confidence
	and/or deposits of countless employees, who the DCU is supposed
	to benefit.

>	I can't see how a neutral message of the form "this is important; 
>	please vote" could be objected to...

	I can't either. But this topic refers to the Sims letter, which
	cannot be interpreted as neutral.

					Tom_K

    
    RE: .28
    
    It boggles the mind that an email message from a peer can be compared
    to a private mailing by a Digital Vice-President at company expense
    (probably $20-25K).  A real stretch in my book.
    
    And please do tell more about the remark you consider untrue.  I'm sure
    the person who made it would be happy to explain their reasons.  Please
    don't just say something that impunes the integrity of a candidate or
    group of candidates without offering specifics and an opportunity to 
    answer.  Please realize that is a big difference between 'real choices' 
    candidates and others.  We are not afraid of speaking and communicating 
    with the membership.  While we may not always agree, that doesn't mean 
    we can't communicate.

.29>    Then talk specifics and we'll debate.

	I intentionally did not get specific because the statement was
	subjective and the `hard facts' I used to determine the candidate's
	claim was false are personal and privy to no one other than
	DCU and me.  I also did not want to enter an area that could be
	misconstrued as slanderous.

		As for Sims' letter, he did not use company resources
		for his political gain.  Quite neutral in my opinion.

    >>            As for Sims' letter, he did not use company resources
    >>            for his political gain.  Quite neutral in my opinion.
    
    My objection exactly. I'd rather the letter say something than be
    s-o-o-o neutral.
    
    While the concept of DCU as a benefit is certainly a thought-provoking
    one, and while the spectre of the Digital bureaucracy mobilizing on one
    side of an issue that really shouldn't involve it directly is
    worrisome, what galls me is the fact that the mailing was virtually
    content free. 
    
    If the "Real Choices" candidates are upset, I can't see the current BOD
    or BOD-approved candidates going "AWRIGHT The company is behind us
    now!!"  It wasn't much more than a rather pro-forma exhortation to get
    out and vote. 
    
    Why squander the money, time, good-will, and land fill while raising
    everybody's temperature for -- pretty much nothing??
    
    John H.

    
    Re .33:
    
    Please, if you have information showing that any candidates is making
    untrue claims, share it. Perhaps you can generalize enough to make
    your case without revealing the particulars. Such information is of
    great importance, no matter the candidate to whom it applies.
    
    I don't think anyone accuses Sims of using corporate resources for
    his political gain. I accuse Sims of using corporate resources in the
    form of roughly $25,000 cash money, and his position of power, for the
    political gain of a minority subset of DCU candidates.
    

	Actually, the whole mess could have been avoided if:

	The current DCU BoD "did the right thing" by:

		Being accountable to the DCU owners.

		Appointing a representative Nominating Committee.

	And the DCU Nominating Committee "did the right thing" by:

		Nominating all qualified candidates that applied,
		rather than than only the ones *they* somehow determined
		were "best qualified".

		Allowed the candidates to completely express their
		positions and grievances against the current Board,
		in the material mailed with the ballot, rather than 
		restricting candidates to a censored, 150 words.

	Had the above occurred, considerable time, effort, money etc
	on all sides could have been saved.

						Tom_K

    i received my letter from sims yesterday.  i live in maryland and the
    only information i have about dcu is from my own experience and some
    input from this notesfile and mail i received from various distribution
    lists.
    
    i am very much interested in real choices candidates.  (can someone
    please provide a pointer to the note in this file that identifies all
    the candidates, i moved on too fast to look at it).
    
    i was appalled at the various loans for commercial ventures that were
    approved and whereby officers of DCU would personally benefit from said
    ventures.  such conflicts of interest do no belong in my financial
    institution.
    
    so i am very pleased to have a choice, a real choice in this latest
    election.  
    
    i thought that sims letter WAS an appeal to dcu members to vote for the
    persons that were nominated through *normal* channels.  as a long-time
    rebel, i'll not vote for them but instead for those who truly care
    about our financial institution.
    
    sue

	All candidates are listed in 1639.255.

			Tom_K

    
    	RE: .33
             <<< Note 1809.33 by CNTROL::MCKEON "I'm no angel~" >>>
    
>	I intentionally did not get specific because the statement was
>	subjective and the `hard facts' I used to determine the candidate's
>	claim was false are personal and privy to no one other than
>	DCU and me.  I also did not want to enter an area that could be
>	misconstrued as slanderous.

    Ahemm, excuse me but are you saying DCU has given or shown you
    information that has not been shown or is not allowed to be shown 
    to others?  Maybe I have misunderstood what you are trying to say.  
    Could you please clarify this?
    
>		As for Sims' letter, he did not use company resources
>		for his political gain.  Quite neutral in my opinion.
    
    I have heard nobody claim that Mr. Sims did this for *his* polictical
    gain.  Many, including myself, beleive it was an attempt to endorse the
    nominated candidates.  
    
    And the entire question of how Mr. Sims's knew about this report in 
    the election materials before the general membership received it has
    been dodged COMPLETELY.  If he has access to Nominating Comm. or DCU 
    information, is that appropriate?  It really makes me wonder how much he
    has been involved in the entire process.  The Nominating Comm. has
    never stated whether or not any of the nominated candidates were 
    recruited as the DCU Election Guidelines encourage.  Just where did Mr.
    Sims draw the line concerning this election and his interest in it?
    
    When I got into this, I thought it was going to be a fair election.  Oh
    well.  I can only say that should a majority of "REAL CHOICES"
    candidates be elected, you will not see a repeat of this election.  DCU
    and DEC may have gotten a tad TOO close to each other over the years. 
    A reasonable arms length business relationship needs to be maintained.  
    Neither DCU or DEC needs any anything that could even be misconstrued 
    as meddling in each others affairs.
    
    Just my $.02
    

    I wonder how much distrust has been generated by the choice of the
    phrase "'Real' Choice" to tag one group of candidates as "good
    guys" and (through inference) the remainder of candidates as "bad
    guys". An appropriate phrase might have been "More Choice", since
    the nominating committee definitely cut it too fine in nominating
    nine people for seven slots (if memory serves - the ballot's at
    home). I haven't seen anything in reading the ballot descriptions
    which would suggest that the "Real" Choice candidates are any more
    real or present any more valid choices than the nominated
    candidates - which as a whole present a change in the makeup of
    the board.

    What I don't like about this is the "us versus them" attitude that
    both sides are guilty of - there's "Ma, he hit me back first" all
    over the map. I certainly would not vote for a "slate" (I mistrust
    slates). Whether I vote for any of the "RC" candidates will depend
    on their apparent qualifications, but I must say that associating
    themselves with that politically invective slogan is a major
    strike against them.

	"REAL CHOICES" is a play on the infamous "MORE CHOICES!" brochure
	where the DEFCU tried to pass off rate increases in the guise
	of giving the members additional options. 

						Tom_K

    I would also like to point out that there are two candidates that are
    not affiliated with any group - two that were nominated by petition but
    are not a part of RC.  

    I for one, liked that choice.
    
    Thanks Dave
    

	re "independent candidates":

	One other independent candidate worth noting: 

	Deepak Goyal.

	There is a group calling itself "Members for a Qualified Board" that 
	has put out a flier touting the candidates nominated by the DEFCU 
	Nominating Committee. 

	Candidate Deepak Goyal, has disassociated himself from this effort,
	and has received an apology from Candidate Ray Schmalz, who, along
	with current DEFCU Board of Directors Chairman Mark Steinkrauss,
	put that flier together, listing Deepak's name against his explicit
	wishes.
	
	See SMAUG::DCU entry 489.22 for Depak's statement on the matter.

					Tom_K

    
    RE: .40
    
    You are the first person I have heard say that 'real choices' somehow
    conveys negatives to others.  Since the Nominating Comm. decided to
    select only 9 people, way back in the petition drive to get people on
    the ballot we had posters that played on the "More Choices" brochure. 
    It had the "More" crossed out and "Real" above it.  It indicated that
    we were offering the membership real choices instead of none if you
    wouldn't vote for an incumbent.
    
    Oh well, we can't help how everybody will perceive things.  For the
    most part, it has been very well received.  Maybe we should copyright
    it?
    

Well, to me there's a very strong implication that the "Real" Choices candidates
are in a class by themselves, rather than making the whole set of candidates
a set with real choices available.

This impression is reinforced by things like personal names along the lines of
"I'm voting for REAL CHOICE candidates" - suggesting that any candidate not
explicitly tied to the "REAL CHOICE" banner is not worthy of consideration.

I don't believe this is just a random firing of neurons on my part - the 
implication is there, and it's fairly blatant.

	I have something like that in my personal name string. I'd
	like to note that when I manned information tables in the ZKO (my 
	break time) and MKO1 (my vacation time) cafeterias, I passed out 
	information on independent candidate Charles Boutcher, along with 
	the info on the RC candidates, and paid for those copies (as well 
	as the RC info) out of my own pocket. And would have done the same 
	for any other candidate that supplied me a master to make copies from.

	I'm sorry that the use of "Real Choices" makes you think that
	users of this phrase think that other candidates are not worth 
	considering. Given the prominent placement of the writeups for 
	the candidates nominated by the DEFCU Nominating Committee in the 
	ballot materials, versus the "back of the book" space provided to 
	the candidates nominated by members, I felt that the use of "Real 
	Choices" would simply make folks more inclined to take the time to 
	read about and consider these candidates as well, rather than 
	dismissing them out of hand.

						Tom_K

         <<< Note 1809.46 by STAR::BECK "Beware OSI Layers 8 and 9" >>>

>I don't believe this is just a random firing of neurons on my part - the 
>implication is there, and it's fairly blatant.

     You're not alone, but I have a slightly different problem with it.
The minute I read about the "Real Choices" deal, I got very suspicious.  
I don't like the "package deal" sound of it because I like voting for 
individuals.   Whether they deny it or not, this grouping appears to take 
away any individual significance of the members of that group.

     I got my ballot today, and it is on its way.

                                     Greg

    
    re .46, .49:
    
    It's unfortunate you feel that way...
    
            <<< COMET::COMET$DISK8:[NOTES$LIBRARY]COLORADO.NOTE;5 >>>
                                 -< Colorado >-
================================================================================
Note 1528.49                   DCU Representation                       49 of 65
WLDBIL::KILGORE "DCU -- vote for REAL CHOICES"       25 lines  12-MAR-1992 17:23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
.47>  The term "REAL CHOICES" candidate was chosen because no matter what we
.47>  did, there would be SOME that would attempt to label us...

               ...and "REAL CHOICES" seemed infinitely preferable
                            to "witch hunters"  :-)

    
    
    Seriously, I've gathered signatures for everyone, and participated in
    the "REAL CHOICES" meetings. A more diverse bunch of people you'd never
    want to try to organize. One very long meeting was devoted to figuring
    out what they had in common. Another very long meeting discussed whether
    they should reduce their numbers to avoid diluting the vote. (The 'right
    thing' happened at that meeting -- nothing! For good or ill, "REAL CHOICES"
    means real choices.)

    The sole and entire "party strategy" or "apparent Package Deal" of the
    "REAL CHOICES" candidates is contained in the six points bulleted in
    the joint statement in .31. Beyond those points, they are all free
                           [ ^-- in this conference, note 1790.0]
    spirits, as they have made abundantly clear to me and to everyone else
    who participated in those meetings. The sole purpose of the term "REAL
    CHOICES" is to allow the DCU mmbership to easily associate names with
    those six concrete promises.
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    In fact, I voted for a nominated candidate who distinguished himself
    by taking a public stand on the real issues, and a non-"REAL CHOICES"
    petition candidate who will bring a slightly different viewpoint to the
    board. Then I voted for five of the nine "REAL CHOICES" candidates
    because of their absolute committment to return DEFCU to the members.
    Among them were candidates with financial experience, management
    skills and the proven ability to communicate honestly and openly.
    
    "REAL CHOICES"
    
    (Now that we have your attention, we hope you'll put aside the slogans
    and fluff and make an informed choice.)
    

    Yeah,  I am unhappy with the *necessity* for the REAL CHOICES
    association.  The incumbents and the officially nominated candidates
    have a tremendous inherent advantage. The only way I know how to
    overcome that advantage is to organize. The analogy is that Clinton
    used his much stronger organization in the South to out poll Tsongas on
    Super Tuesday.

    It's a question of pure practical politics: don't organize and don't
    get elected; organize and somebody will vote against the organization
    itself.  Sigh.
    
    I wonder if those objecting to the REAL CHOICES association are also
    objecting to the QUALIFIED CHOICES association.  If they are, I think
    they have only 3 people left to vote for.

    Having not taken the time to read the whole discussion at 1200 baud,
    has anyone thought of informing KO that these resources are being
    expended by DEC on what is a DCU issue?  As one who has sent EM to
    KO in the past, I don't relish the thought of doing so again, however,
    if noone else has the guts, I'll be happy to ask that he look here
    for a discussion concerning improper use of digital funds.
    	
    					Cowboys in the field forever,
    
    						David Silvers @MBO	
     

    It is a shame the current DCU BOD can not fess up as to what they did
    with my money- that's right I said "MY MONEY" It is my money that I
    have worked very hard for and put it into the DCU for prudent above
    board loans and guarantees. I despise under the table deals and
    backroom barters to "FAVORITE SONS".If they can't accomodate me or my
    money then "THROW THE BUMS OUT ON THEIR COLLECTIVE BUTTS".
    I got my ballot today and it is filled out and back in the mail, and
    very shortly the new resurgence will begin to lead DCU out of the abyss
    it has been mired in. The slogan "ABSOLUTE POWER CORRUPTS ABSOLUTELY"
    IS SO VERY TRUE AND HITS HOME. To all fellow DCU members if you really
    "CARE" vote the BUMS out "NOW"
    	regards
    	2 cents worth
    	John
    

    I would like to add that, all along the way, I have had support from
    many people that are actively involved with the RC effort, Tom_K
    especially.  I appreciate his/their support more than they will know, I
    just was concerned about the issues/concerns raised by some of
    the observers of this note.   
    
    I have said this before but I wanted to re-state it here:
    
    To Tom Krupinski, and those that helped me get signatures and passed out
    information on my behalf, I am greatful.    Thank you.   Now, I choose
    to put my faith in the voters a see who they select to represent them
    on the BoD of the DCU.  I do not want to start to add a flurry of
    responses to notes comments at this time for fear it might make it look
    like I was only interested in getting elected ... so I will sit back
    and wait to see what happens.  Regardless of the results, though, I
    will continue to participate in the re-building process for DCU.

    When I re-read .54, I thought I made it sound like only those involved
    in the RC effort helped me and that is not the case.  I did have active
    support from many others not affiliated with any effort other than doing 
    the best they can to make DCU a better place.  I have a coffe cup that I
    enjoy drinking out of that has the following on it:
    
    	"That person is a success that quitely trys to make their corner of
    the world a better place"
    
    These people have been a tremendous success!
         

re: .52, Dave

>    has anyone thought of informing KO that these resources are being
>    expended by DEC on what is a DCU issue?

One would hope or expect that, since Mr. Sims was responsible for the
expenditure which prompted this topic, and since Mr. Sims is a direct
report to KO, KO is already aware of it.

-Jack

    .53:
    
    As it happens, most of the incumbents have declined to run again, so
    they can't be thrown out.
    
    Dick

    Susan Shapiro and Abbott Weiss are the two incumbents running again.

    About the last thing in the world to worry about is the "Real Choices"
    people acting, thinking, or voting as a bloc, should they be elected to
    the board.
    
    I'd be surprised if most of them weren't insulted by the thought. But
    there is something even more powerful working against "Real Choices"
    becoming a disciplined political party than their personal honor.
    
    From what I have seen and heard, their primary cause for association
    has been opposition to the way the current board has run the credit
    union. Coalitions formed to help "outsiders" become "insiders" are
    usually destroyed by their success. Once the fundamental reason for
    "Real Choice" to exist is gone, all of the natural differences and
    disagreements and variations that have seemed of less importance will
    resurface again and the folks will go their own way voting their own
    minds.
    
    Should any of them be elected, and I surely hope some are, "Real
    Choices" will soon be an interesting footnote in DEFCU history.
    
    John H.

       The 'Real Choices' candidates have shown that they are in favor of term
    limitation for the BoD. I think this should help to diminish the fears
    that they will become too entrenched.
                                        Denny

    First, I was furious when the DCU lied about their new "choices" 
    chequing fees.
    
    Second, I was furious with the DCU board covering up the loan scandal.
    
    Third, I was furious when the Board nominating committee, set up by
    DCU, rejected nominations by some of the very people who gave up their
    time to expose the fraud and failure on behalf of the existing board of
    directors. This, after 45-minute interviews.
    
    Fourth, I was furious when I got the election pamphlet, clearly
    encouraging voters to vote for the people set up by the nominating
    committee, and putting their resumes in the front of the brochure, in
    nice bold type fonts, then putting those nominated by petition at the
    back, in scatty, non-aligned, non-spell checked format.
    
    Finally, I get a latter from John Sims encouraging me to read what the
    nominating committee said in the pamphlet, in a thinly disguised
    attempt to get me to vote for those people who were set up by the
    nominating committee, but with plenty of plausible deniability.
    
    That really pissed me off.
    
    Sincerely,
    
    Ray Thackeray.

    I have no axe to grind here, because I'm ineligble for DCU membership
    here in the UK anyhow, but my question to those talking of approaching
    KO about the memo in .0 is simply "Have you talked to John Sims yet?". 
    
    On every occasion when I've thought of complaining about a fellow
    DECcie to their manager, I have *always* spoken to them first.
    
    I have seldom found this exercise without point and have almost never
    had to go to their manager.
    
    	- andy

    Well, why not get some hard facts, either way, by talking with the man? 
    
    What can be lost? Rather a lot could be gained.
    
    /andy

    
    RE .64
    
    At this point in time, the actions Mr. Sims has taken in the name of
    the Digital are being judged by each person.  Some read it and throw it
    away without giving it a second thought, others read it and said
    "That's nice." and then threw it away, others read it and thought it
    was endorsing the Nominating Committe and thus the nominated
    candidates, others read it and wondering why a Digital VP is wasting
    Digital money during tough times.  So the perception varies widely.
    
    The letter can't be retracted.  It's over and done with and I see
    little that can be lost or gained either way.  Myself and Chris
    Gillett, another petition candidate, asked DCU to give us the mailing
    list so that we could send information to all DCU members concerning
    the goings on at DCU and the reasons for petition candidates on the
    ballot.  Most of the membership doesn't have a clue about most of the
    issues because DCU either won't tell them or tells them half the story.
    As a very good example, why wasn't the membership told that Chuck 
    Cockburn helped pick the nominated candidates in the Nominating Comm. 
    Report?  To this day, the fact that Mr. Cockburn sat on the Nominating
    Comm. has not been communicated to the membership.  To get all the
    facts to the membership, by us, would be very difficult but we felt
    like we at least needed to consider it.  DCU would only allow access to 
    the membership through a mailing house.  It would have cost us about 
    $20,000 to send a single page.  Would Mr. Sims or Digital have considered 
    an effort to raise $20,000 from Digital employees (many were eager to 
    contribute) as interest in a Digital employee benefit?
    
    Speaking as a petition candidate who is working hard to get myself as
    well as other petition candidates elected, I personally found it to be
    interference in this election.  The fact that Mr. Sims even knew of a
    Nominating Comm. Report before you or I indicates an involvement in the
    election process.  It now seems that petition candidates are running
    against much more than the other candidates.  We are actually running
    against the company, or the wishes of the company, we work for.  
    
    When the results of the 'independent Nominating Committee' were announced 
    and only 9 people were selected, including 2 incumbents, it seemed pretty 
    obvious that if change was to happen, it would have to be forced from the 
    bottom up, through the membership.  I guess any large company or 
    bureacracy fears change and will usually fight it rather than accept
    it, especially since they have so much at their disposal that can be
    used to maintain the status quo.  Their ability to recognize when
    change is neccesary is usually a bit behind the curve.
    
    For DCU's sake, I hope change is allowed to occur.  From speaking with
    members, I get the distinct impression that their patience is wearing
    thin.  If change doesn't come soon, many more DCU members will decide
    to take their money and go elsewhere.  It appears 4500 have already
    decided to do just that.  Along with them, went $25 million in assets.
    It is my objective to see that this does not continue.  A credit union, 
    which by definition has a limited field of membership, can't afford to 
    drive members away.

Re: .28 (Dan McKeon)
If there is something inaccurate about my statement, I'd like to know about
it so if you are refering to mine, please let me know on or off line. I'd
like the opportunity to prove my statements to you. If you are going to
say there is inaccuracy in some statement, I think it's appropriate to
expect you to specify what statement to give the author a chance to either
justify or retract the statement.

Re: Chuck Boutcher and "real choices"
I am a "real choice" candidate and I collected signatures for Chuck because
I was collecting signatures for everybody.

Note also that it's not possible to vote the so-called slate of RC candidates
and not have your vote invalidated because there are more than 7 RC
candidates. Even if you want to vote all RC candidates, you must still decide
which RC candidates to vote for.

Re: the John Sims letter
I think that his letter was an endorsement of the nominated candidates.
If "B" says that "A" is important and "A" favors the nominated candidates
over the petition candidates, does that not imply that "B" is endorsing the
nominated candidates? The term "plausible deniability" comes to mind...

    re: .19
    
    To those who read too much into the words "anti-DCU" I apologize (a
    bit).  More proper, perhaps, would have been "anti-current DCU
    leadership" (ACDL?)
    
    However you want to call it, however, I've received *dozens* of heavily
    biased email messages, been approached twice in the hallways by people
    handing out 'ACDL' material, and more than once waited for by a printer
    as hundreds of copies of some 'ACDL' material printed.
    
    Everybody's entitled to an opinion.  They're even entitled to attempt
    to change my mind.  They aren't entitled to spend Digital's money,
    however.
    
    (btw, until the 'Special Meeting' I was leaning towards the ACDL
    camp...)

	STAR is in ZKO, right? Did this happen in ZKO? I've spent
	around $75 printing DEFCU info down at Staples for the ZKO 
	efforts, there shouldn't be any reason for anyone to "print 
	up hundreds of copies" of stuff here. Clearly, you saw what 
	you saw, I'm just curious...

	Also, if you don't mind, did the special meeting change your
	mind so as to be more "for" the current management? If so, would
	you mind sharing what changed your mind? 


					Tom_K

    
RE: .67
    
    Thanks for that clarification.  Maybe we are sensitive to the phrase
    "anti-DCU" because the status quo has attempted to convince people we
    are trying to destroy the credit union.  If we wanted to that, we would
    just leave it in the hands of the people currently there.  Your mileage
    may vary.
    
    >(btw, until the 'Special Meeting' I was leaning towards the ACDL
    >camp...)
    
    This comment does baffle me though.  Are you saying that you were
    impressed with the way the meeting was conducted?  What happened to
    change your mind?  The "anit-ACDL" people never even got a chance to
    speak.

    Having read all 69 replies, I wanted to voice my opinion.
    
    The barrage of mail and postings from the REAL CHOICE candidates leads
    me to believe that the "nominating committee selected candidates" are
    all a bunch of puppets and yes-men who will lead the DCU down the
    drain.
    
    But my brain tells me that there shouldn't be anything WRONG with
    having been selected by the nominating committee. Certainly if 7 of
    them are elected, there will be an entirely new BoD, since only 2 of
    the 9 are incumbents. Moreover, I don't sense that they have a
    track-record of crime, embezzlement, misdirection or sleazy bank
    dealings. The only thing that seems to weigh AGAINST them is that the
    Nominating Committee LIKED them.
    
    I really hope more people will try to find out more about the Nominated
    candidates, especially the people in sites where an RC candidate is
    running.
    
    I share the disgust of many at the mismanagement of the credit union. I
    hope that such mismanagement will end. But I'm not so sure that voting
    for RC candidates is a guarantee that the Credit Union will become a
    sound financial institution that protects my money. Or that voting for
    the NCS candidates guarantees that the Credit Union will sink further
    financially... or ethically.
    
    But there is one thing that has really bothered me, and I guess the
    best way to understand it is to voice it. When Paul Gransewicz first
    started sending out ALL those mail messages about the Credit Union, he
    said he wasn't doing it to get on the Board, or for any self-interest.
    At least that's how I interpreted it. And now he's running for a seat
    on the Board.
    
    Paul, did I misinterpret you? Had you always intended to run for a
    seat? Or was it something that you decided to do after the Special Meeting?

    Rep to <<< Note 1809.70 by ASDG::FOSTER "Radical Moderate" >>>

>    But my brain tells me that there shouldn't be anything WRONG with
>    having been selected by the nominating committee. Certainly if 7 of
>    them are elected, there will be an entirely new BoD, since only 2 of
>    the 9 are incumbents. 
    
    Ah but  that's the RUB you see, the Nominating Committee only gave us 7
    non-incumbents and 2 incumbents to choose from for 7 positions.  If you
    feel that you wanted  a  whole new board in there, the NC really didn't
    give you the member a choice, they're basicaly are saying here  are our
    7 choices and that's it..  That's what the petition Candidates are  all
    about    (whether   RC  or  not,  there  are  9  RC  candidates  and  2
    independents), to  give  you  the  DCU members a Real Choice (a Play of
    words on last fall Choice Checking fiasco) on who you wish to vote for.
    
    BTW in past elections I remeber something like a  2-3:1  ratio  on  the
    number  of  Candidates for positions open from the Nominating Committee
    What happened this year?
    
>    I really hope more people will try to find out more about the Nominated
>    candidates, especially the people in sites where an RC candidate is
>    running.

    Were ever I could I did, as a  matter  of  fact  I  voted  for Petition
    Cnadidates as well as Nominated Candidates.

 >   But my brain tells me that there shouldn't be anything WRONG with
 >   having been selected by the nominating committee. Certainly if 7 of
 >   them are elected, there will be an entirely new BoD, since only 2 of
 >   the 9 are incumbents. Moreover, I don't sense that they have a
 >   track-record of crime, embezzlement, misdirection or sleazy bank
 >   dealings. The only thing that seems to weigh AGAINST them is that the
 >   Nominating Committee LIKED them.

DCU is the only credit union of which I'm a member (I belong to 2 others and
will join a 3rd today), where the BoD is composed completely of high level
finance and personnel-type managers.  It is also the only credit union that
doesn't have any members on the credit and other committees.

Since the current and past BoD all come from the same areas of the company,
why should we think that more of the same type of people will help solve
the many problems DCU faces today?

There is also a petition candidate that ran several times as a nominated
candidate.  In the last election, this person came very close to winning
a seat on the BoD.  Now, suddenly, this person is no longer qualified to
be on the BoD in the nominating committees opinion.

I find it hard to believe that the only qualified candidates are those
who are in finance and personnel.


>     I really hope more people will try to find out more about the Nominated
>    candidates, especially the people in sites where an RC candidate is
>    running.

We have tried.  With the notable exception of Goyal ??? (I'm sorry, but
I don't remember his full name), not a single nominated candidate has accepted
the many offers to participate in discussions in the DCU notes conference.

It's hard to find out about someone if they refuse to talk.


>    I share the disgust of many at the mismanagement of the credit union.
>    I hope that such mismanagement will end. But I'm not so sure that voting
>    for RC candidates is a guarantee that the Credit Union will become a
>    sound financial institution that protects my money. Or that voting for
>    the NCS candidates guarantees that the Credit Union will sink further
>    financially... or ethically.

I agree.  Nothing is guaranteed.  However, I know alot about the petition
candidates, their opinions on what a credit union should be, how it should
be run, and the role of the membership in the credit union.  I have heard
nothing from the nominated candidates.  I can't be expected to vote for
a candidate who won't tell me what then intend to do if elected.

Bob

    Re: .70

    If all you want to consider about the officially nominated candidates,
    are their resumes, then I think .70 is accurate.

    But there is far more to it than the resumes.  The old Board of
    Directors was very well qualified, yet they got into trouble by
    insufficient oversight of the participation loans.  And the old BoD
    also got into trouble by insufficient communication concerning a whole
    series of issues which they have chosen to not discuss at all during
    this election campaign.

    Yet the new slate of officially nominated candidates, or all but one of
    them (Goyal), have approved  the pink flier which touts "ongoing
    communications". Have you seen any sign of "ongoing communications"
    with those candidates?  I have seen almost none except for their
    resumes.

    Let me give a specific example.  The now-infamous pink flier, which
    says it was "Paid for by Members for a Qualified Board", does not
    identify who those "members" are, and all efforts to find out
    have been fruitless.

    Ray Schmalz, the first candidate listed on the flier, arranged with
    Mark Steinkrauss to produce and distribute the fliers.  Ray told me
    that.  When I asked Ray who the "members" were, he said he didn't know.
    When I asked him who his contact with the committee was, Ray told me he
    wouldn't tell me because he didn't have approval from the person.

    Now, consider for yourself whether or not you want a DCU BoD to be
    supported by a secret committee of "members".  How much do the
    nominated candidates actually owe to that secret committee.  I don't
    know.  Do you?

    And why would Ray Schmalz let himself be supported by, and why would he
    cooperate with, a secret committee whose names he doesn't know himself?
    I wouldn't permit that if I were running. Is that the kind of
    independent voice you want on the DCU BoD?

    I have voted for 7 of the 9 REAL CHOICES because I know they will in
    fact be independent.  I also know from the notes conferences and much
    VAXmail that they will communicate.  I have no such demonstration from
    the officially nominated candidates, and that lack of a demonstration
    is a major worry to me, given the non-communications of the old BoD.

    Tom Eggers

    BTW: When will the results be published?

	Yes, I wish that there was no need for a campaign as well. But
	the advantages of incumbency are well known, and many of those
	advantages apply to those with the endorsement of the DEFCU
	nominating committee.

	There shouldn't be anything wrong with having been selected
	by the nominating committee. But, with all of the controversy
	surrounding this election, the election should have not even
	the *appearance* of any impropriety. But impropriety has made
	a number of appearances. Why was the magic number 9 chosen?
	A number of questions legitimate questions were raised to the 
	chair of the nominating committee, that person has refused to 
	answer any of them. Chief among the appearance of impropriety 
	is that the very person to be supervised by the BoD, the DEFCU
	President, was on the nominating committee.

	With all of the appearances, I called upon all of the candidates
	nominated by the nominating committee to disassociate themselves
	from any of these appearances by simply going through the same
	process that the petition nominees would be going through. Since
	a volunteer network was in place to collect signatures, they would
	have had no problem at all in doing this. But not a single one did.

	So, while the petition candidates owe their places on the ballot to 
	the hundreds of *members* who signed their petitions, the nominating 
	committee candidates owe their place on the ballot to the nominating 
	committee, one third of which was the very person they intend to 
	supervise. Members should consider how much weight, if any should be 
	place upon this fact when they vote.

	One of the candidates, Ray Schmalz, has apparently been working in 
	close cooperation with the current BoD chairman, Mark Steinkrauss,
	in touting the nominating committee slate. It is their right to do
	so. And another, Deepak Goyal, has disassociated himself from
	that effort, as is also his right. And of course, two of the
	nominating committee nominees are incumbents, and thus represent 
	the status quo. So it would appear that there is a wide range to 
	the extent that the "'nominating committee selected candidates' are
	[all] a bunch of puppets and yes-men who will lead the DCU down the
	drain." The actions of some of the candidates give voters a good 
	idea of where they stand in relation to this, but what of
	the others who have been silent thus far? 

						Tom_K

>    BTW: When will the results be published?

	At the DEFCU annual meeting, April 23, 1992.

				Tom_K

    My wife and I both voted a straight REAL CHOICES ticket.  We have no
    confidence that the Real Choices people will do any better than the
    nominating comittee's slate, but we figured, what the hell, let's shake
    them up a bit.
    
    Larry
    
    PS Would have thought about it a lot harder if I wasn't SERPING out of
    here in another 66 days.  Our accounts in DCU will be closed shortly
    after May 29.

    
    RE: .70

    Hi, the name is Phil, not Paul, but no big deal because I have been
    called a lot worse over the course of this 'experience'.

    I will tell you exactly what I went through.  It certainly wasn't an
    easy decision to run.  I now know in a much smaller way what public
    figures go through when deciding to run for office.
    
    After the Special Meeting I was happy that all Board positions would 
    be up for re-election.  I fully anticipated all incumbents to run
    again.  At this point in time I was still looking at DCU and examining
    what it did, how it did it, and why.  Something I hadn't done in the
    previous 6 years of membership.
    
    Part of this involved getting DCU's Election Guidelines (note
    applicable in thsi election it appears) and reading them.  Some of the
    info intrigued me like Nominating Committee members having a
    "reasonable amount" of Digital seniority.  Much had been written and
    expressed about the nominating process.  Some considered it good, 
    others thought it was flawed.  What better way to find out than to 
    experience it by applying.  At the time, I had *no* idea how many 
    people would apply.  I submitted my application at 4pm on the last day 
    because I was very uncertain how it would be interpretted (ie. just 
    as you have interpretted it).  But I figured I could always drop out 
    after the Nominating Comm. selected people.  Nothing really lost except 
    some time filling in the form and interviewing.

    I really did think at the time that the Nominating Committee would 'do
    the right thing' and nominate a reasonable number of people with a 
    diverse background to give the membership something besides the same
    old choices.  The results of the Nominating Committee was a shock,
    to say the least.  I never expected them to choose me, even though I have
    come to know Chuck Cockburn so well ;-)  But they didn't even choose
    a person that was nominated the two previous years.  They also passed
    over people with very valid credentials, who were NOT senior DEC
    managers.  A closer look at the nominated candidates reveals that they
    map almost identically to the old board (lawyer, personnel, finance,
    marketing) and some have said that a couple of them are professionally 
    linked to the old Board.  But even worse than this was the fact that
    the Nominating Committee actually HAND-PICKED the new Board for those
    members that didn't want to vote for an incumbent.  Some election.
    I actually thought DCU had learned something at the Special Meeting.
    
    Not only are we unsuitable for Board postitions but the membership at
    large is too simple-minded to be able to chose its own Board.  I
    considered this to be the final insult to the membership.  At this point 
    it became obvious to me that DCU required a re-birth of sorts.  What 
    seemed to be missing was the view and representation of the average 
    member, the very people that most need a real credit union.  I felt I
    could help DCU in that respect as well as contributing my business
    experience.  Basically, offering more than x years of DEC senior management.
    You learn a lot when you deal face to face with customers when you
    operate a small business.  You learn very quickly that without their
    business and loyalty, your business doesn't survive.  I saw no business
    sense being applied at DCU and felt it was drastically needed.
    
    But I did struggle with running/not running because I've been involved
    with DCU since the Special Meeting petition drive.  But I discussed my
    concerns with several people who sent me mail encouraging me to run and
    ultimately decided that it was a risk I had to take.  If I cared enough
    to be this involved then I should be able to commit to providing a
    valid alternative to what I felt was not in the best interests of DCU
    and its membership.  Basically, put up or shut up.

    Now you say, "what a crock", he has a deep dark agenda, and he is in it
    only to go to those Board meetings in Bermuda.  While I can see how
    Elbow Beach would be fun, I have quite a different approach.  I advocate 
    terms limits for Board members.  If this is not implemented and I am
    elected I will only serve two terms max, one if I think DCU is back on 
    track with the wishes of the membership.  I am not a politician nor do
    I intend to make this a lifetime position.  Besides, there are many
    members out there that are more than qualified, many more than 9.
    
    Sorry for rambling so long.  But you asked a very good question and I
    think you deserved a complete answer.
    
    Feel free to contact me if you have any other questions or concerns.
    
    Phil

    P.S.
    I believe your comment about the nominated candidates was valid until
    they all put their names on a flyer that was being driven, in part, by
    Mark Steinkrauss (current Chairman of the Board), and which also
    contained the names of the two incumbents who played a role in losing
    $15 million of OUR money.  I certainly know I would not have allowed my
    name to appear with theirs.  Unfortunately, one of the nominated
    candidates did NOT wish to be considered as part of the 'block' but his
    wishes were disregarded and he was included.  His name is Deepak Goyal
    and he HAS demonstrated independence of thought and action.  He
    definitely deserves everybodys consideration.  These are just my views
    and opinions.  Your mileage may vary.

    re: .68, .69
    
    Yes, I'm in ZKO.
    
    At the Special Meeting I was extremely put off by the extremely
    abrasive tactics used by what seemed to be a core group of folks
    opposed to the current board.  I was also impressed with statements
    that various regulatory agencies had reviewed and found nothing wrong
    with DCU dealings which turned out to be fraudulent.  I got the very
    strong impression that the current Board of Directors were well-meaning
    people who got duped along with a lot of others.  Charges of dishonesty
    and corruption made against the board were presented without a shred of
    evidence, in my opinion.
    
    For me, a stigma is now attached to the "Real Choices" candidates --
    seeing them appear to run together as a block causes me to associate
    them with a radical element which I wouldn't want to see in charge. 
    I'll admit this isn't completely fair, but I don't don't claim to be
    perfect either.

    I was at the Special Meeting too and I didn't hear any charge of
    dishonesty and corruption made against anyone. I heard many questions
    being asked, and precious few of them being answered.
    
    That's the crux of the matter. When those who are asked questions
    do not respond, then somehow an assumption of "charges", "cover-ups",
    or "guilt" prevails, only to further obfuscate the truth.
    
    As members we not only have the right to be answered, but we have
    the obligation and duty to seek the truth. We are the ones responsible
    for and in the position to safeguard our salaries/assets, and when
    they appear to be in jeopardy it's time to ask those questions.
    

RE: .79
>> I was also impressed with statements that various regulatory agencies 
>> had reviewed and found nothing wrong with DCU dealings which turned out 
>> to be fraudulent.

By definition, if the dealings were "fraudulent" then there *was* something 
wrong to be found.  The fact that both the DCU and the various regulatory 
agencies weren't able to detect fraud isn't very impressive at all, and 
doesn't speak well for either group.

re: .82
>> >> I was also impressed with statements that various regulatory agencies 
>> >> had reviewed and found nothing wrong with DCU dealings which turned out 
>> >> to be fraudulent.

>>By definition, if the dealings were "fraudulent" then there *was* something 
>>wrong to be found.  The fact that both the DCU and the various regulatory 
>>agencies weren't able to detect fraud isn't very impressive at all, and 
>>doesn't speak well for either group.

Lets be fair, I believe what the regulatory agencies said was that they found
no fraud with the way the BoD members acted. They did however, find fraud 
with the then president Mangioni(?).

Now, just because the BoD is innocent of fraud does not mean they were not
negligent.

    
	RE: .79
    
	Wow.  Are you under some real misperceptions.  Allow me to
    address some of them.
    
>    At the Special Meeting I was extremely put off by the extremely
>    abrasive tactics used by what seemed to be a core group of folks
>    opposed to the current board.  
    
    98% of the people who spoke at the Special Meeting had nothing to do
    with any group or the volunteers that had organized calling it.  Many
    of them were just irate DCU members that felt like they were getting
    shafted by the way the meeting was being conducted.  I know I raised my
    hand continuously to get up and speak to the issues.  Unfortunately,
    Mark Steinkrauss knows who I am and refused to recognize me and many
    others that he knew would speak their mind and state some facts.  So
    bottom line is you heard nothing because nothing was allowed to be
    heard.
    
    >I was also impressed with statements
>    that various regulatory agencies had reviewed and found nothing wrong
>    with DCU dealings which turned out to be fraudulent.  I got the very
>    strong impression that the current Board of Directors were well-meaning
>    people who got duped along with a lot of others.  
    
    Well, I guess this is where we differ.  I am totally UNimpressed with
    claims self-performed investigations (DCU) and we have since learned
    that no regulatory agency has conducting ANY investigation of DCU or
    its board.  They were only interested in Mangone.  DCU has stated that
    only Mangone was involved in this fraud.  That is incorrect.  DCU's
    general counsel (Richard Cohen) has also been named as a defendent in
    their lawsuit as well as the NCUA suit involving Barnstable.  I think
    all DCU members need to know conclusively whether any investigation of
    the Board was done and what the results were.  Considering there is
    over $50 million missing ($10 million DCU, $40+ million Barnstable), I
    don't think this an unreasonable request.  Particularly since it has to
    do with the safety of people's hard-earned savings.
    
    But if the Board is so well-meaning then why do they refuse to answer many
    questions that have been raised concerning their part in the approval
    of the fraudulent loans?  Quite to the contrary, they responded with an
    "Information Protection Policy" to stifle any further questions or
    release of information.  How 'well-meaning' is this?
    
    >Charges of dishonesty
>    and corruption made against the board were presented without a shred of
>    evidence, in my opinion.
    
    Pardon me, but NOBODY ever said this to my knowledge.  If they had they
    they would have been corrected.  In fact, if anybody had such
    evidence they are obliged to contact the proper authorities to disclose
    it.  However, many used the words 'incompetent', 'not exercising due
    care', 'negligent', etc.  These are very different.  They are different
    for every individual.  No facts were allowed to be presented at the
    Special Meeting to illustrate those contentions.  I DO have them and
    you are welcome to see and read them.
    
    >For me, a stigma is now attached to the "Real Choices" candidates --
>    seeing them appear to run together as a block causes me to associate
>    them with a radical element which I wouldn't want to see in charge. 
>    I'll admit this isn't completely fair, but I don't don't claim to be
>    perfect either.
    
    	You have every right to believe what you want, but only a few "real
    choices" candidates had anything to do with the Special Meeting.  You
    appear to have jumped to some pretty big conclusions without having too
    many facts.  Give me a call sometime and we can discuss all this.  I'm
    not trying to change your mind, but I think you need more information
    before making some of the conclusions you have made.  I am 5 minutes
    away from you and would welcome the chance to discuss this after work
    sometime.  I'm game if you are.
    

	re .79

	First, can I have a first name so I don't have to call 
	you "hey you"? :-)
	
>	I was also impressed with statements that various regulatory 
>	agencies had reviewed and found nothing wrong with DCU dealings 
>	which turned out to be fraudulent. 

	Are you referring to the following statement of the BoD:

	"During the past few months, the National Credit Union
         Administration (NCUA), our independent auditors and
         legal counsel have conducted extensive investigations of
         DCU to determine the extent of the fraud committed by
         the former president, Richard Mangone.  They have
         concluded, without question, that no board member,
         official or staff member, except Mr. Mangone, was
         involved in any wrongdoing at the credit union."

	If so, are you aware that the NCUA later said that 

	"the NCUA has not conducted and has no plans to conduct an 
	investigation of the current Digital Employees Federal Credit 
	Union board of directors". 

		(See SMAUG::DCU 403.0 for more details)

>	Charges of dishonesty and corruption made against the board were 
>	presented without a shred of evidence, in my opinion.

	Did we attend the same meeting? At the one I was at,no charges
	of any kind were made against the board - Some folks wanted
	to raise some *questions* (not charges) about some things,
	but due to the way Chairman Steinkrauss ran the meeting, never
	got the chance. I believe that such an important thing as a
	charge of dishonesty and corruption would surely be noted in the
	minutes of the meeting, but I can find no such mention. In fact,
	inspection of the minutes of the meeting reveal that members
	opposed to the current BoD were not recognized for discussion,
	and only were recognized for points of parliamentary procedure,
	where the Chair could not ignore them.

		(See SMAUG::DCU 414.0 for the special meeting minutes,
		as supplied by the DEFCU)


	Members wanting answers to legitimate questions. That may be a radical
	notion to you, sir, but I think it fits right in with the Digital
	notion of "doing the right thing".

					Tom_K
    

    Re the following:
><<< Note 1809.85 by TOMK::KRUPINSKI "I'm voting for 'REAL CHOICES' candidates in the DEFCU election" >>>
>
>	re .79
>
>	First, can I have a first name so I don't have to call 
>	you "hey you"? :-)
    
    Don't you just hate it when someone doesn't give their name at the end
    of a note...  I know I do. 
    
    BTW:  I looked it up last week in ELF.  See .21 in this thread.
    ELF says that STAR::BOUCHARD's first name is RICH.
    
    Jim Morton
    

Rathole Alert...  Read at your own risk:

All I know about this d**n DCU is this:

I had $5.00 in that institution for a good 4.5 years...  After all the hubbub
started they snatched it as some sort of "fee"...

I want my d**n five bucks back (hey!  It's a lunch)...  If I knew they were
going to take it I would have saved them the trouble and closed my account... 

'nuff said...

/mike

    Mike,
    	Do you still have your last statement that had your 5 dollars
    listed on it?  If so I would persue this.  They have no right to take 5
    dollars without you ordering something or withdrawing it.  Just for the
    principle of it, I would confront them one more time, before taking it
    to the authorities.  Theft is illegal in most of the US, with the
    exception of where Congress resides :-).
    
    Jim Morton
    

    
    RE: .87
    
    You should address your complaint to the current Board of Directors 
    who changed Article 3, Section 3 of the Bylaws.
    
    It now reads:
    
    "The shareholdings of a member who fails to complete payment of one
    share within 6 months of his/her admission to membership, or a member
    who reduces his/her share balance below $5 and does not increase the
    balance to at least $5 within within 6 months of the reduction may be
    absorbed by a late charge upon authorization of the board."

re: .89, Phil

Do we know what III.3 said before? The way it reads now, at least to me,
they can't do what they did, since his balance didn't go below $5 except
for their assessment of a fee (which isn't allowed?).

-Jack

Actually it was five bucks and some change for some time.  I would get a little
interest and get whacked for a little fee, back and forth. Then one day the fee
was such that it always put me to exactly $5.  The all of a sudden I got a 
$5 fee and my balance went to $0.  Why?  I dunno...  All I ever did was
update my address...  I suppose they probably changed some rule and I suppose
I probably wasn't paying attention, but then, that was probably what they 
were counting on when they did it...

I think it sucks...

/mike

re .19

I had this same thing happen to me.  I had about $11 in there for a
while (do most of my banking at another credit union joined years ago).
I got a statement saying that I was being charge $2.50 for having an
"inactive account".  My solution was to go down the next day and take
the rest of it out.  I don't need that kind of aggrevation.  After all
I've seen about the state of DCU the last couple months, I'm glad I'm
not involved any more.

Ron

        I started a DCU savings account because they required me to
        start one to get a car loan.  When I paid off the loan, I left
        the savings account.  When DCU, without advance notice, started
        charging me for an inactive account, I complained and DCU
        refunded the inactivity fee.  (I then closed my account.)

        I would not expect this tactic to work if you didn't complain
        soon after an inactivity fee was first charged to your account.

        					B.J.

    
    RE: .90
    
    Yes, I have the old bylaw but not at the moment.  The difference in the
    two was that under the new one, DCU could actually REMOVE MEMBERS with
    this 'fee' once their account had dropped below $5 (probably due to
    another fee).
    
    I consider this serious for those members who may now be outside the
    field of membership.  Once removed, they can't re-join.  If you still
    work for DEC, then no problem.
    
    I consider this type of action to be somewhat underhanded in its
    approach.  Instead of wondering why so many members chose to do their
    business elsewhere (and there are MANY valid reasons), DCU takes the
    attitude that they don't need them.  They then implement a system of
    fees and bylaws that allow them to automatically flush members. 
    Considering DCU has a customer base that is restricted by the field of
    membership, is this a wise business practice?
    
    This type of approach to problems is a large part of why I'm running
    for the Board.  I've seen it in other DCU actions and policies too.  I
    just think there is a better way of doing business and a better way to
    treat people.
    

    re: 92 & 93.  I opened up an account with $20.00 because the DCU
    explained that I needed to open an account with at least $5.00 to
    be a member.  I thought I was being a good doobie by putting $20.00
    in the account.  The $20.00 sat there and I never received any
    correspondence from DCU.  One day I got a form saying that my account
    had been charged $5.00 for being "inactive" (this charge was never
    iterated to me nor, at the time, did it appear on any written
    literature from the DCU).  I closed my account and was told that
    I couldn't join again for two years.
    
    I bank outside, now.
    

To be fair, any bank I've ever dealt with does consider an account with no
activity over a number of years to be "inactive", and those banks do indeed
start assessing "inactive account" fees until said accounts go away.

The exception, I believe, is Mass, where the state just gloms all the inactive
accounts out from under the banks.

Other than that, this is common practice for a bank.

Have we all forgotten that DCU is a bank and not a credit union?

{"It's a separate entity"/"No, it's an employee benefit"/"no, it's a bank!"
... No, I think it's a breath mint.}

    
    RE: .95
    
    Yes, you got bit by the new 'inactive account' fees.
    
    A few questions if you don't mind, merely as information to me.  If DCU 
    had sent you a letter with a form to close it out would you have closed
    it?  If DCU had sent you a questionaire asking you why you decided not to
    utilize the credit union programs, would you have filled it in and sent
    it back?
    
    I think there are better ways than to slowly bleed peoples' money from
    them.  Many of these types of accounts were required by DCU to begin
    with and are probably forgotten by people.  A simple request to close 
    may be all that is needed.
    
    >I closed my account and was told that I couldn't join again for two years.
    
    This is UNTRUE.  I know of NO DCU Bylaw which denies a person in the
    field of membership the right to re-join the credit union.  Do you have 
    this in writing or remember who told you this?  BTW, this is not the first
    time I have heard this.
    
    >I bank outside, now.
    	
    Were you banking there before or only after DCU closed your account?    

re: .96

All states do this eventually.  If there's no activity for some number
of years,
then the money in the account is considered abandoned.  The state takes
its crack at trying to find the owner, through newspaper ads and otherwise.  If
there's still no response, the money gets turned over to the state.  

  Gary

    
    
      To slightly misuse the legal term,  the state "escheats" you 
    out of it...  Sorta tells the whole story...  :^)
    
    
    							-al
    

    RE: .97
    
    The run-down of my experience with the DCU:
    
    After becoming a regular Deccie, I was interested in seeing what
    benefits belonging to a Credit Union might offer.  Being a person
    who, at the time, did not have a personal checking account nor a
    credit card, I joined primarily for the purpose of partaking of
    the convenience of cashing checks, etc.  I might add that this is
    all I did at my local bank, at which I had a savings account.
    
    I filled out the necessary form to become a DCU member.  The clerk
    explained that I could be a member by opening up an account with
    "only $5.00."  I put $20.00 in the account.  I used the DCU weekly
    to cash checks, had inquired about a car loan, contemplated opening
    a checking account, etc.  
    
    At no time, was there any discussion about inactive account fees,
    nor did such a statemtn appear on any DCU literature of that time.
    At no time did I ever receive a statement from the DCU showing my
    balance or the deduction of an inactive fee.  It was when I received
    a statement one day giving my balance as DECREASING that I attempted
    to find out why.
    
    After it was explained to me that there was an inactive fee, and
    after arguing that I did not know about it, otherwise I would have
    made an attempt to make the account active by depositing, etc.,
    and after being told, in so many words "too bad", on principle,
    I closed my account.  The clerk told me, when I went in to close
    the account, that I couldn't join again for two years, a statement
    which I took seriously.  I couldn't understand why such a policy
    was in place, but I didn't have the interest in pursuing it because
    my feeling at the time was that the DCU didn't have its act together.
    
    About two years after the above incident, my local bank sent
    correspondence to three members of my family who had savings accounts.
    The letter stated that the bank was instituting a practice of fees
    for inactive savings accounts.  It told when the fees would start,
    how much they would be, and why they were being instituted.  There
    was a lead-time of a couple of months.
    
    This DCU incident occurred around 1987-1988 as I recall.  I am still
    banking at my local bank, partly because of my negative experience
    with DCU.  I might consider being a member in the future if the
    DCU picture changes. 
    
    
     
    
    
    
    

    Could anyone explain why there is an inactive account fee?
    Is it just another way to extract money from members?
    I would think it is in the DCU's interest that there would
    be inactive accounts....why is an inactive account worse than
    one where I deposit and withdraw a few dollars on some periodic
    basis.

    It seems to me that this fee is unrelated to the practice of the
    state taking the money from the bank....the state  would like to get
    its hands on that 'inactive' money also.
    bob

    Quite simply, any account costs the financial institution money to
    operate. It has to be audited as with every other account in the
    system. Operating expenses or the financial institution have to be
    proportionally spent on ita, and so on.  And $5 doesn't really add much
    to the Financial institution's investment potential.
    
    q
    

    
     I am a charter member of DCU and had 2 very negative experiences
    that cost me Thousands due to DCU screwups. I withdrew all but the
    $5.00 I needed to remain a member about 5 years ago. Eventually the
    non-active service charge ate my five bucks but I still get a statement
    and DCU ballots for the board. I could bore you for hours relating
    my negative experiences with these guys.

	Well, you now have the opportunity to use that ballot to effect
	positive change. There are good candidates who will, if elected,
	make the DEFCU the kind of credit union we all want it to be.
	But people need to vote for them, and put them into office.

						Tom_K