Conference 7.286::dcu

    There is nothing new in it and that's a good sign. It's
    just what it makes itself out to be - a reminder of what policy
    says. It's all there in Policy 5.64 and has been for quite a
    while. Some people need reminders every once in a while is all.
    
    			Alfred

I don't see anything "veiled" in this memo, though I do see some
ambiguities.  Please lift the veil or consider changing the note titile.

- greg

                       <<< Note 436.2 by STAR::ROBERT >>>

>I don't see anything "veiled" in this memo, though I do see some
>ambiguities.  Please lift the veil or consider changing the note titile.

    re: -1 
    
    I purposely named the title as I did because it's subject to personal
    interpretation. I'll change the title if asked to do so by the
    moderator; and no one else, although I understand that others may
    disagree with my perception of the memo.
    
    Jim

    But, there IS something new.  Complaints are reaching Mr. Sims level
    sufficient to warrant his attention.  That is, this issue is becoming a
    problem for him.  There is merit to this.  
    
    Assuming that this note file is the source of some of these complaints,
    it is probably important to emphasize the need for all to "do the
    righht thing".  I am a volunteer that plans to help gather signatures.
    It's because I want more choices on the ballot.  I don't yet know who I
    will vote for and may well vote for some of the candidates proposed by
    the Nominating Committee.
    
    I work hard for Digital, usually not just during the day but also at
    night.  I like Digital.  I like the benefits.  DCU is one of the
    benefits I treasure.  I want it to be preserved and to continue to grow
    with Digital.  It is sad that this interest requires some people to put
    themselves and their careers on the line, but all good things are worth
    taking risk to preserve.  I do no less for Digital.
    
    Steve

>    But, there IS something new.  Complaints are reaching Mr. Sims level
>    sufficient to warrant his attention.  That is, this issue is becoming a
>    problem for him.  There is merit to this.  

	This is not new. It's a little new for him to make it as widely
	known as this but it has happened before.

			Alfred

re: .3

Please read my note again.  It didn't say "change the title".
It said "explain or change" the title.  The title itself is
a veiled statement..

If you think something in the Sims memo is veiled, tell us
what it is.  Don't just throw a label at it and walk away.

- greg

Well, I can only say why I think it's veiled, in the sense of not saying
that it is really primarily about the activities of critics of the DCU
Board of Directors.  The specific references to "elected public officials 
or directors of organizations" and to "efforts to solicit employees to take 
action, sign petitions or support particular causes or candidates" seem
just a bit too topical to not be about this file.  I'm not saying that
he was wrong to send this, I'm just saying that it seems to me to really
be about complaints he's gotten about anti-DCU Board activities.

I do object to one thing in the message, though:

    Finally, employees should remember that it is never appropriate to 
    spend working time in employee interest notes for non-work 
    purposes.  Personal or entertainment activities in these notes 
    files should be limited to assigned break times, lunch time and 
    before or after business hours.  

Before or after business hours, lunch time and assigned break times?  
Does he know that a large fraction of those who use notes and mail heavily
are not hourly employees?  My working hours are set by me, my boss, and
my co-workers -- I, like most engineers, have no "assigned break times".
Nor is my work week a procrustean bed set to 40 hours -- for me there
really is no such thing as fixed business hours.  I expect that a
large fraction of those reading this message can say the same thing.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    Re: .7
    
    I think all he means is that if you know that you aren't putting
    in at least the 40 hours that you're being paid for that you
    should be doing that when you're supposed to be here working rather
    than reading non-work-related notes files.  That's just another way
    of saying what the Orange book has been saying all along so it
    really isn't anything new.
    
    fwiw,
    Steve
    

�Well, I can only say why I think it's veiled, in the sense of not saying
�that it is really primarily about the activities of critics of the DCU
�Board of Directors.  The specific references to "elected public officials 
�or directors of organizations" and to "efforts to solicit employees to take 
�action, sign petitions or support particular causes or candidates" seem
�just a bit too topical to not be about this file.  
    
    I hope this was said tongue in cheek because at face value this has to
    be one of the biggest stretches of the DCU conspiracy theory I've seen
    to date.  I've seen several instances outside of this notesfile that
    had nothing to do with the DCU that could apply to the above.

re: 8

Thank you.  So if I understood you correctly, you believe John
had events related to the DCU (and, I'll infer you meant this
notesfile as well) significantly on his mind when he wrote that?

Since you did not cite any particular reason for that belief,
other than a sense that mentioning things like petions was
unusually applicable to the DCU and this file, am I also correct
in assuming that it is, then, strictly speculation on your
part?  That is, you aren't privy to additional information
besides that in the memo on which to base your feelings?

If so, I just wanted to know that.  There's nothing wrong with
speculation per se, but if there was more to it than that, I
wanted to know.

re: .9

As the old saw goes, "just because someone is paranoid doesn't
mean there's no one out to get them".  ;-)

- greg

ps: I do agree with the interpretation that "on breaks etc." has
    the same spirit as "render unto DEC your 40 hours".  Of course,
    *he* may have meant it literally.  In this case I'm speculating.

    I don't find anything wrong with this memo at all. I'm glad to see that
    our Corporate Resources VP is making a very reasonable statement
    and pointing out what the bounds of DEC policy are.
    
    I personally intend to (and have been) work very hard to make sure that
    we get a DCU board that truly represents the general membership. The
    existance of this memo will help me. What I intend to do is within what
    is defined as allowed in this memo. I will take great pleasure in
    quoting from this memo if any small minded people try and put a stop what I
    intend to do. Just as the boards own memo was one of our most valuable
    weapons in getting to the special meeting this memo could well help us
    work towards a final outcome of a representative DCU board of
    directors. Of course it is slightly different this time in that the
    memo writer (John Sims) is not somebody I have a beef with. Whereas
    the board memo was written by the very people whose actions I strongly
    disapproved (and still do) of.
    
    Onwards and upwards for a representative DCU BOD,
    
    Dave

I guess I should have expected some churning on this issue -- really, I
intended .7 to be a simple and straightforward statement!  But I'll explain.

.9   No, I don't think it's part of any "DCU conspiracy".  Nor do I see how
that could be read into what I wrote in .7 -- unless it's by implication
from the word "veiled".  But to me, "veiled" just means unrevealed.  I'm 
sure there are instances outside this notes file that Sims memo could be
referring to, but I *know* that there are numerous examples involving DCU
activities (on both sides) that his memo could be referring to.  

.10  You've got it.  Sims says he's received numerous complaints recently,
and I am speculating that they are predominantly regarding DCU issues,
both inside and outside of this notes file.  I stated one reason: the 
topical nature of the references to things that are going on (on both 
sides) regarding the situation at the DCU.  Also, I do know that there
have been complaints made, although I don't have any inside information 
about whether those complaints reached Sims.

.8:  Well, it could be.  But normally, when people say "business hours",
they mean "9 to 5" or fixed times similar to that.  I've heard rumors of
engineers being criticized for doing DCU-related work during "business
hours", meaning on a day for which they didn't turn in a vacation card.
Of course, the people complaining weren't engineers, but neither, I
gather, is Sims.  So I think the point about when and where it is
appropriate to engage in personal activies needs to be very clear, and 
I'm not sure that Sims didn't mean "business hours" literally.  

However, I intend to do my best to "do the right thing", and Sims memo
is a well timed reminder to both sides on the issue on how to tell what
"the right thing" is.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    So, let's get positive-minded and discuss this some more.
    
    Do you think it would be appropriate to ask for a personnel extract and
    send electronic mail to all employees containing all of the petition
    candidate's resumes?  How about posting them in the DCU VTX (whenever
    that gets fixed).
    
    Do you think it would be appropriate to pass candidate's petitions
    around in a business meeting?  At the entrance of the cafeteria?
    
    What would you do if your cost center manager asked you to spend some
    extra time on a critical project on the same night as some volunteer
    activity for a petition drive?

    RE: .13
        
>    Do you think it would be appropriate to ask for a personnel extract and
>    send electronic mail to all employees containing all of the petition
>    candidate's resumes?  How about posting them in the DCU VTX (whenever
>    that gets fixed).
    
    I don't think this is an option.  Many DEC employees don't belong to
    DCU.  And I think this would be termed "non-solicited mail".  Some
    would call it junk mail.
    
>    Do you think it would be appropriate to pass candidate's petitions
>    around in a business meeting?  At the entrance of the cafeteria?
    
	No, and no.  Only in non-work (cafe, breakroom, lunchroom) areas 
    during non-work (lunch time, breaktime) times.
    
>    What would you do if your cost center manager asked you to spend some
>    extra time on a critical project on the same night as some volunteer
>    activity for a petition drive?
    
    Easy, the job comes first.  Besides, there are many backups to pick up
    in cases like this.
    

    This memo was sent out to several moderators of conferences and not
    just the moderator of this one.  Those moderators were given permission
    to distribute as appropriate.  This conference may well have been one
    of those generating the complaints that reached Mr. Simms (sp?).  To
    think that it is the major reason is a bit paranoid, IMO.  This is a
    presidential election year and the rhetoric is already flying.  I've
    seen instances of people petitioning for/against things like dump
    siting, dog laws, and other local political issues.  I've seen some
    concern expressed over people's property rental postings.
    
    My point is that I've seen plenty of stuff around the net which could
    have spurred this memo.  This conference is probably a very appropriate
    one to post it in what with all of the accusations flying from both
    sides (witch-hunters, crooks, etc.), but I don't think this memo
    represents anything more than what it says.

    
    Not to fear, we are working on improving and protecting one of the most
    valued DEC benefits, DCU.  Treasurer Ilene Jacob's message clearly 
    states it is an employee benefit.  From this message, it appears DCU's 
    and DEC's interests do merge.  We are clearly trying to improve
    both.
    
    
    
              Greater Maynard Area News                LIVE WIRE


  When the Digital Federal Employees Credit Union (DCU) was formed, Digital
  made the policy decision to encourage the formation and management of an
  independent, financially strong institution to serve Digital employees.
  While the DCU is a separate entity which is owned entirely by its members,
  it is treasury's standard procedure to review the viability of financial
  institutions with whom Digital does business.  Digital has a strong interest
  in the well being of the DCU as an important employee benefit.

  In light of recent events, the company wants to reassure Digital employees
  that the DCU is financially sound with assets of approximately $375 million
  and a membership of over 88,000.  As a federal credit union, member deposits
  are insured up to $100,000 per account by the National Credit Union
  Insurance Fund, the most financially secure of all the federal insurance
  funds.

  There have been many challenges affecting the DCU in the last year.  The
  company is convinced that the DCU's Board of Directors, management,
  regulatory agencies and independent professionals have worked together
  effectively.

    

   John Sims' memo was placed into VTX NEWS (worldwide) today - it is being
   given a wide distribution. The following excerpt is of particular interest:

	Statements that attribute improper, illegal or immoral motives or
	actions  to others; statements that cast aspersions on the character
	or integrity of  others or that amount to libel or slander are not
	permitted. PERIOD.  In  this regard, it does not matter whether the
	individuals subject to the  comment are elected public officials or
	directors of organizations disfavored by the author.  There is no
	"Public Figure" exception in these  systems.
    
   Nothing new; just a reminder that one would be wise to refrain from
   libelling any directors of organizations.

   And, of course, one should refrain from calling fellow employees
   "witchhunters."


   Jim

Would the John Sims' memo admonition against using company resources
to drum up support also prevent any upper management mail blitz
campaigns sponsored by, for example, current DCU BoD members, which
tried to solicit support for the nominating committee's slate of candidates
in the upcoming election?

Just wondering,
-Jack

    RE: .18 Yes it would. Or so I have been told by Ron Glover.
    
    		Alfred

�Would the John Sims' memo admonition against using company resources
�to drum up support 
    
    Maybe I'm wrong here (I'm definitely in the minority), but I took that
    memo as reiterating the standard P&P policy against soliciting for
    personal financial gain, and for political reasons.  Since the DCU is
    intimately involved with DEC, I'm not sure it applies here.  

>    Maybe I'm wrong here (I'm definitely in the minority), but I took that
>    memo as reiterating the standard P&P policy against soliciting for
>    personal financial gain, and for political reasons.  Since the DCU is
>    intimately involved with DEC, I'm not sure it applies here.  

    There are other people who feel as you do. Ron Glover is *not* one of
    them. He told me that policy applies here and since he wrote the policy
    I believe him. Though a case could be made differently I doubt you
    could win. 

    		Alfred

�           -< You think that memo showed up here just by chance??? >-
    
    No, but as I've stated before neither do I think this was done solely
    for the DCU notesfile.  The memo was sent out to several moderators
    from a variety of conferences and it was requested that these
    moderators circulate the memo.
    
�Ron Glover is *not* one of
�    them. He told me that policy applies here and since he wrote the policy
�    I believe him. 
    
    Does this contradict Phil's response from Ron or are there different
    degrees of solicitation?

There is no contradiction.

Phil said that Ron Glover agrees that we are allowed to solicit in the
cafeterias during lunch hour.  The Sims memo says we are not allowed to
use email etc. for solicitations.