Conference 7.286::dcu

    I don't believe there are any charges against former (or present)
    BoD members.  But, depending on the outcome of the special meeting,
    maybe there should be!?
    
    Don

    
    It is highly unlikely the the current BoD would initiate collection on
    their $3 million bond for their part in this mess.  They have also
    conducted an investigation of themselves that has also miraculously not
    revealed any wrong-doing.  I don't know about you, but I feel MUCH
    better. ;-)
    
    For the record, to my knowledge criminal charges have not even been
    brought against Mr. Mangone.  So the criminal investigations into this
    are still in their early stages.  Civil suits have been filed and DCU
    reportedly collected on Mangone's $6 million bond.
    
    As for class action suits, it takes people with money willing to act. 
    Again, DCU has hired the best lawyers in Boston and we are paying for
    them.  The costs must be astronomical.  I wonder if their time (and our
    money) might be better spent developing a case against the curreent BoD
    to collect on thier bond than chasing Mangone for money.  FYI, Mangone
    is also named in a $47 million suit by the NCUA.  Blood from a rock and
    all that...

    
    
    Re: criminal charges
    
    I would lighten up on this a lot with respect to the BoD.
    
    There is good reason to be upset with them.  There is good reason
    to question whether the membership has any confidence in them (Isn't
    that, after all, what agenda item 2 for the special meeting is all
    about?).  None of this adds up to them being criminally responsible
    for anything.  Making such assertions, even jokingly, is inviting
    a world of trouble.
    
    Steve
    

Re: .3

   I don't  think  I heard Phil say anything about the BoD being criminally
   responsible.   I'm  not  saying  that  either.   But  I believe they are
   responsible at some level.  And that may be all it would take to collect
   the  $3M  bond on the BoD.  But we can't find out the details of the $3M
   bond because of the information policy.

    
    RE: .3
    
    Nobody has said the BoD is guilty of criminal activity.  But their
    statements are misleading to people.  When they state none of the BoD has
    been implicated, people will draw incorrect conclusions that a full
    investigation has been completed and all guilty parties have been 
    indicted.  At this point in time, the same can be said for Mr.
    Mangone, that can be said for the BoD since NOBODY has been criminally
    charged.  These are very subtle but important facts.  People will draw
    incorrect conclusions if they hear some of the facts, not all of them.
    

    
    Re: .7
    
    You're right.
    
    Steve
    

    
    RE:  .6, .8
    
    I'd like to request you delete and re-post .6.  Thanks.

    
    Re: .6 deleted and reposted as requested:
    
    Following is the text which I was responding to:
    
    >I don't believe there are any charges against former (or present)
    >BoD members.  But, depending on the outcome of the special meeting,
    >maybe there should be!?
    
    Perhaps it was a joke, but with the tensions and issues running as
    they are I believe it is not something we should even hint at right
    now.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    
    

    re .10
    
    No, it wasn't a joke!  And, no I won't backoff on saying it!  Look
    at the flip side, if they've done no wrong then they've got nothing
    to worry about.  And, no, I wasn't inferring that they had done
    anything wrong.
    
    I probably won't make the meeting due to my location, but people who
    attend may have a different (negative *or* positive) view of the BoD
    after this meeting.
    
    Don

re .11

>	Look at the flip side, if they've done no wrong then they've 
>	got nothing to worry about.

	That really isn't true. First, allegations of wrongdoing
	have a tendency to stick, whether they have a basis in reality
	or not. Second, just about everyone has done things in their
	life that, while not illegal, they are not proud of, and
	would just as soon not have made public.

				Tom_K

    RE: .12
    
>	life that, while not illegal, they are not proud of, and
>	would just as soon not have made public.
    
    I don't buy this at all in the DCU BoD context.  They are elected
    representatives of the membership and are answerable to the membership
    for their actions and decisions.  That is part of the "deal" of running
    for the office and accepting the position.  Hidding or burying things 
    is never in anybody's best interest.

�   I don't  think  I heard Phil say anything about the BoD being criminally
�   responsible.   
    
    Who is saying Phil said anything.  And as he's told us several times,
    he's "not in charge here" (for want of better terms).
    
    And whoever thinks noone has suggested bringing the BoD to court hasn't
    been reading this conference.  It has been suggested by more than 1
    person.

    
	RE: .14
        
    >Who is saying Phil said anything.  And as he's told us several times,
>    he's "not in charge here" (for want of better terms).
    
    Thank you for pointing this out!  Each individual decides for
    themselves how they will proceed.  Right now DCU has more money for
    lawyers than all of us combined.
    
    >And whoever thinks noone has suggested bringing the BoD to court hasn't
>   been reading this conference.  It has been suggested by more than 1
>   person.

    Geez, just what we need.  DCU spending more money on lawyers to defend
    the BoD.  Wonder what the tab is up to on the Mangone case?
    
    May I ask you a question .14?  If it was determined by an attorney that
    there was a valid case against the BoD, would you object to it being
    pursued?

    Well .15, why should I and what's your point?

    
    
    Well .16, I'm wondering if there are any circumstances under which you
    would favor legal action against the BoD?  Are there any?