Conference 7.286::dcu

    [Permission to forward or re-post granted.  All headers and names must
    be retained.]
    
    	This is what I submitted on Friday to DCU.  Exactly 150 words. 
    Needed many more but maybe next election if all goes well this
    election.  Solicitation at end has been censored to conform to
    Digital's P&P.
    
    
	Candidate Statement for Philip J. Gransewicz

	-----------------------------------------------------------------

	   I'm a "REAL CHOICES" candidate in this election and offer a
	pure credit union philosophy to the membership.  This credit union 
	exists to serve YOU, the membership.  DCU MUST offer more than
	convenience.

	I am:

	    - Opposed to checking fees.

	    - Committed to:
                * BETTER, not just competitive, rates.
		* Open and honest communication.
		* Full disclosure of DCU financial statements.
		* Restoring membership rights and trust

	    - Dedicated to making the "bottom line" of DCU,
		  MEMBERSHIP SATISFACTION.

	   I am a software engineer and have been with DEC 8 years.
	I helped organize the Special Meeting which rescinded
	checking fees and resulted in THIS Special Election.  I also
	helped organize the petition drive to offer you "REAL CHOICES"
	on this ballot.  I have years of experience operating and
	managing a private business.  I hold a B.S. in Accounting
	(Bentley College).

	I wish to serve as YOUR representative on the Board and a.. f.. 
	y... v... o. s.......

	-----------------------------------------------------------------
    

�	I helped organize the Special Meeting which rescinded
�	checking fees 
    
    Technically speaking, the checking fees were rescinded by DCU prior to
    the Special Meeting.
    
�	   I'm a "REAL CHOICES" candidate in this election 
    
    I've noticed this phrase pop up in a few of the other candidates'
    writeups.  Are we getting into a party system?

.2>  �	   I'm a "REAL CHOICES" candidate in this election 
.2>      
.2>      I've noticed this phrase pop up in a few of the other candidates'
.2>      writeups.  Are we getting into a party system?


Sounds that way, doesn't it?  A breath of fresh air:  the interests of
the SHAREHOLDERS organizing.  The Establishment has always had the power
of incumbency, bylaws changes, ballot terminology, and so on.  Now for
the first time perhaps the "visionaries" stand a chance.

The REAL CHOICES party?  Sign me up.

    
    RE: .2
    
    Factually speaking, DCU "postposed" the checking account fees pending Mr.
    Cockburn's plans according to DCU literature.  The Special Meeting 
    officially rescinded them.  The membership spoke.
    
    As for a party system, what does it really matter?  I am not afraid to
    discuss what I stand for and hope to accomplish if elected.  And I
    prefer to label myself with a phrase that characterizes this to some
    extent.  Should I have waited for others to provide a label?
    
    Surely you don't think it's all just one big happy ballot
    where we all have the same advantages?  I invite you to run for the
    Board by petition to see what the playing field looks like from down on
    the grass.

    .2>   Technically speaking, the checking fees were rescinded by DCU
    .2>   prior to the Special Meeting.
    
    	Accurately speaking, a checking fee was deferred by DCU.
    	"Rescinded" was never mentioned by DCU - technically they
    	could reinstate the fees at any time, as far as anything
    	they've said is concerned.
    
    	The only action taken concerning "rescinded" was the vote at
    	the Special Meeting.

�    	"Rescinded" was never mentioned by DCU - technically they
�    	could reinstate the fees at any time, as far as anything
�    	they've said is concerned.
    
    And they still can reinstate the fees at anytime, no matter what the
    outcome of the Special Meeting.
    
    Eitherway (Special Meeting rescinding or DCU postponing) the outcome
    was the same.
    
    DCU has already claimed that the fees were rescinded prior to the
    Special Meeting so it will be interesting to see if Phil's statement
    will be allowed to stand as is.

.6>      DCU has already claimed that the fees were rescinded prior to the
.6>      Special Meeting so it will be interesting to see if Phil's statement
.6>      will be allowed to stand as is.


Yes, someone has certainly tried to give that impression.  (DCU staff wouldn't
be trying to manipulate shareholder opinion, would they?)

Whatever DCU staff may have tried to claim, Agenda Item 1 at the Special
Meeting was a motion to rescind the fees.  It was voted on.  It passed
overwhelmingly.

.6 is right, though:  it will be interesting to see whether Phil's statement
(or ANY of the candidates' statements) are tampered with by the time they go
to press.

    From .2 (MacNeal)
    
    >> Technically speaking, the checking fees were rescinded by DCU prior
    >> to the Special Meeting.
    
    From .6 (MacNeal)
    
    >> Eitherway (Special Meeting rescinding or DCU postponing) the outcome
    >> was the same.
    
    So, Mr. MacNeal, what was your point in .2?
    Specifically, do you believe the DCU would have [rescinded, postponed]
    the fees if that item had not been on the Special Meeting agenda?

    
    Well, I haven't heard anything from DCU as of now about any edits
    they required.  Anybody have any DCU correspondence which says it
    "rescinded" fees prior to the Special Meeting?
    
    If DCU, it's President and/or the Board wish to find themselves at a
    table in the front of an auditorium (there will be much more interest
    the second time), they most certainly could attempt to implement fees
    again.  It would simply insure another rush of the membership to close
    yet more accounts.  From what DCU's financials look like at this
    point, that would be institutional suicide.
    
    But that does not change the facts of the situation leading to
    the Special Meeting in November.  DCU NEVER rescinded fees on its own. 
    Their attempt to manipulate the situation by 'postponing' them the day
    before the Special Meeting petition drive was very obvious to
    everybody.  The membership didn't fall for their marketing of
    'postponed fees'.  The membership clearly mandated 'rescinded fees'.
    

�    So, Mr. MacNeal, what was your point in .2?
    
    My point was that since the DCU has already taken credit for rescinding
    the fees, it would be interesting to see if they allow Phil to take
    credit for it.
    
    As far as whether or not DCU has taken credit for it, wasn't there a
    motion made at the special meeting to remove the question from the
    agenda since the fees had already been removed?  Didn't some in here
    question the wording of the results of the Special Meeting published by
    DCU particularly in regard to the outcome of Question 1?  Or am I
    making this stuff up again?
    
    A case could be made that the calling of the Special Meeting resulted
    in DCU's action to postpone the fees.  A case could also be made that
    the hiring of a new DCU president caused it to happen.  For whatever
    the reason, the decision was made by the DCU prior to the Special
    Meeting which is why I think DCU might not allow Phil's statement.

re: .10

I suspect that others may have interpreted your .2(?) as I did. I mistakenly
thought that you were saying that the special meeting petitioners could not
take credit for forcing the checking account fees to be rescinded because the
BOD had already suspended the fees.

Your .10 cleared up my misunderstanding.  Thank you.

Bob

    Yes. thank you for .10.

    
>    My point was that since the DCU has already taken credit for rescinding
>    the fees, it would be interesting to see if they allow Phil to take
>    credit for it.
    
    I'm not taking credit for rescinding the fees.  I will accept some of
    the credit for helping give the *membership* the opportunity to do it
    though.  And again, this is a very fine but *important* point.  None of
    DCU's communiques mentioned 'rescinding fees' that I am aware of.  I do
    remember fees being 'postponed' though.  There is a world of difference
    in my eyes.
    
>    As far as whether or not DCU has taken credit for it, wasn't there a
>    motion made at the special meeting to remove the question from the
>    agenda since the fees had already been removed?  Didn't some in here
>    question the wording of the results of the Special Meeting published by
>    DCU particularly in regard to the outcome of Question 1?  Or am I
>    making this stuff up again?
    
    Yes, I think we got the standard Jack Rugheimer speach that this was
    all illegal, blah, blah, blah.  Is that what you mean?  And yes, I believe
    DCU's statement after the meeting did try to claim they had already
    rescinded the fees, which they most certainly did not.  Anybody know
    where their post-meeting statement is?  This conference is getting too
    big to keep track of things.
    
>    A case could be made that the calling of the Special Meeting resulted
>    in DCU's action to postpone the fees. A case could also be made that
>    the hiring of a new DCU president caused it to happen.  For whatever
>    the reason, the decision was made by the DCU prior to the Special
>    Meeting which is why I think DCU might not allow Phil's statement.
    
    Well, timing is everything on this topic.  The word coming out of DCU,
    especially from the "communications dept.', was that fees WERE going to
    be implemented.  'Shop around'.  Certain phone conversations with Mary
    Madden were VERY to the point about this.  The Special Meeting petition 
    drive was announced and the day before (?) signature gathering, DCU
    'postponed' the implementation of the fees until Mr. Cockburn could
    develop his 'strategic plan'.  Believe whatever you want.  I firmly
    believe DCU had no intention whatsoever of delaying or rescinding those 
    fees until the special meeting had been brought up.
    
    But all that is history.  The statement is a statement of commitment
    and active involvement for DCU's betterment.  It is not libelous or
    slanderous and can be fully documented.  So I'm not really worried that
    they will mess with it.  Now if the situation is as DCU and the Board
    claims it is (small band of troublemakers, members calling DCU in
    support of the status quo) then my statements are negatives.  In which case
    they'll definitely leave them in.
    
    Oh well, all minorly interesting banter considering all the real issues
    ahead of us.

I'd like more information on the origin of the "REAL CHOICES" phrase in 
various BOD Candidates election statements. Is there some agreement from all 
the petition candidates to include this on the first line of their statements?
Is it a take-off on some DCU announcement (when they initiated the checking 
fees, etc?). Just seems odd to see it in the same place in more than one 
candidate's statement.

Regards,

Jim

    The phrase is in most of the petition candidates statements. It's
    not in mine because I sent mine in early and because of family
    commitments wasn't able to try and get it added late. It is sort
    of a play on the DCU checking announcement but it's really more than
    that. The petition candidates are not just more options on the ballot.
    Many of us felt that what was needed was not just more choices but real
    choices.

    To me that means we're not all the same. We're from a variety of
    backgrounds and professional fields. We're not just managers because
    Digital is not made up just of managers. We're not just more candidates
    all a like but real choices in that it makes a difference who you
    vote for. If we were all the same (as each other and the other
    candidates) it would not matter who you voted for. So it wouldn't be
    a real choice. Now, I believe, we have not just more but real choices.
    			Alfred - A REAL CHOICES candidate

    
    SURPRISE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    Anybody think DCU reads or gets notes?????
    
    Just got off the phone with Patty D.  Seems the Nominating Committee
    (wonder who??) had a problem with the word 'rescinded' in my writeup. 
    They would prefer the words 'dealt with'.  I strongly opposed the
    change and am awaiting word.  I again pointed out what I have stated in
    here.
    

    Phil, if they sub "dealt with" for "rescinded", then you would have
    151 words!

	Phil,

	Just quote their own minutes to them:

	as posted in Note 414.0 "DCU POSTING: SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES"
        
		"AGENDA ITEM #1
        
	        *The Chair read agenda item #1  -  "a rescission of all 
                                                      ^^^^^^^^^^
	        changes to DCU 'checking' (sharedraft) account terms, 
	        conditions, options and fees made since August 1, 1991."
        

	*Their* words, not yours. Push back like hell. You are 100% in the 
	right on this.

					Tom_K

Found on the internet:
===================================================================

Jeff Maass                   Amateur Radio: K8ND (@ W8CQK)
NW of Columbus Ohio                Netmail: [email protected]

GILLETTE'S PRINCIPLE:
  "If you want to make people angry, lie. If you want to make
   them absolutely livid with rage, tell the truth."

    
    Great roast beef in TTB today!  Everybody should come on over... ;-)
    Claire is a first class chef.
    
    
    RE: .17
    
    Thanks and good idea.  I'll offer to 're-word' it if I get more words
    to state BOTH sides of the issue.  DCU's version and then what really
    happened.
    
    RE: .18
    
    Thanks for the pointer Tom.  I have a copy at my side now when they
    call back.  I'll be interesting to see if they are going to argue with
    their own minutes.
    
    RE: .19
    
    Great quote.  It certainly has been proven true over and over.
    
    
    Please hold...  On the phone with Patty D.  Now they want to change it
    to "which voted to rescind".  Wow.  What a conversation.  They are in 
    essence try to put their viewpoint in my statement!!  They are stating
    the fees were rescinded even though there is NO DCU statement prior to
    the Special Meeting stating so.  They are stating that only the Board
    has the right to set rates.  So in essence the vote at the Special
    Meeting was meaningless and unenforceable.  I have asked for a
    conference call and/or meeting with the Nominating Comm. over this
    issue.  I doubt I will get one.  I suggested that if they changed the
    statement they also place an asterick at the end clearly indicating
    THEY edited the statement.
    
    I am OUTRAGED that the Nominating Comm. has taken to wordsmithing my
    writeup to reflect THEIR view of the Special Meeting.  They clearly
    fear the truth reaching the membership out there that is unaware of
    what has been going on.  It doesn't say what DCU has lead the
    membership to believe.  If this is the communications style we can
    expect from DCU, it is clear we must still be on guard.  Censorship and
    doublespeak is alive and well at DCU.
    
    Awaiting the next call.

    
    Another aspect of this is that I was NOT notified of this edit prior to
    the deadline set by DCU.  They had my statement last Friday.  I was
    told they were being reviewed over the weekend.  I called DCU *twice*
    yesterday afternoon and spoke with Kim Gates concerning the statements. 
    There was NO issue either time.
    
    Now this morning I get a call from Patty D., with a looming deadline to
    get these statements in.  She claims she left a message for me
    yesterday afternoon around 3:30.  I never received any message and none
    of the log books in the message center (where all my calls go to in the
    afternoon if I don't pick up) show a call being logged.
    
    

    Can you point me to the note that contains the names of the nominating
    committee?

Note 413.0 lists the Nominating Commitee members and gives biographies.

Note 434.0 gives the Nom Comm's list of criteria for chosing nominees.

    I just talked to Phillis Lengle (DTN 223-3854), the chairman of the
    Nominating Committee.  She said she had read all the statements, but
    was not particularly familiar with any one of them.  She said they were
    trying to avoid the possibility of slander or libel.  She did seem
    familiar with the concept that truth is a complete defense (in the US)
    against slander and libel.

    I asked her to personally involve herself in the review of the
    statements, and Phil's in particular, since the wording he said he was
    using is so similar to that of the BoD minutes.

    We discussed several other things, such as openness.  She sounded
    somewhat distressed by the whole situation and wanted to assure me that
    there was no collusion on the Nominating Committee's part, and that
    they did the best they could to pick the very best candidates.

    PS, Please don't shoot the messenger.

    Re:
    
>    We discussed several other things, such as openness.  She sounded
>    somewhat distressed by the whole situation and wanted to assure me that
>    there was no collusion on the Nominating Committee's part, and that
>    they did the best they could to pick the very best candidates.

    This is one of our biggest complaints. The DCU election guidelines
    specify that the nominating committee should pick QUALIFIED candidates
    not what they consider to be the VERY BEST CANDIDATES (I remember
    Phillis saying before that they chose the MOST QUALIFIED candidates so
    I guess that wasn;t an unintentional slip). It is the membership's
    responsibility to pick the MOST QUALIFIED/VERY BEST CANDIDATES not
    the nominating committee's. The nominating committee's job is simply to
    screen out candidates who don't meet the set of guidelines defined in
    the bylaws/election guidelines.
    
    Dave
    

    On that point I captured her wording quite accurately: "... the very
    best candidates."

    
    Well, I decided to write directly to Phyllis stating my case and
    concerns.  Thanks to everybody who also did so.  I think it
    made a difference.
    
    I received a call from Patty D. around 4pm indicating that the
    Nominating Committee will leave the statement as submitted and put a
    note indicating all candidate statements have been unedited.  Good news
    for candidates and members reading the statements.
    
    One of the issues I brought up was the issue of notification and when
    it was done.  Though I was not able to confirm or find any indication
    of written notice being given by DCU yesterday, I don't want anybody to
    think that I was calling Patty D. a liar.  That is NOT what I mean't to
    say and apologize if it came off that way.  I simply could not verify
    what she was telling me happened.  She assures me she called and left a 
    message and that is good enough for me.  Based on her past actions which 
    have always been quick and thorough, she must be believed.  So SORRY
    PATTY!
    
    I just wish I could have dealt DIRECTLY with the people on the
    Nominating Committee so that people wouldn't get caught in the middle
    like this.  None of this he said, they said.  I think it could have
    been resolved much quicker.
    
    Now let's get on to some REAL issues...
    

    How can they say all statements are unedited when they've forced Paul
    to change some words? Maybe it'll say:
    
    "All statementss are unedited except for Paul Kinzelman's"!
    
    Dave

    Re: .-1
    
    If Paul isn't willing to argue it, I think we should let it drop.
    
    [I'll razz Paul about it in private!]	:-)

    
    RE: .24
    
    From your reply I get the sense that Phyllis Lengle was not aware of or
    active in the wording changes being asked of me.  Is that an accurate
    impression?  Since I didn't speak with her and you did, maybe you could
    tell us your impression.
    
    BTW, I have the Oct. 1991 issue of "Network' which contains Cockburns
    writeup and wording for their non-rescission of the fees.  Keeping
    every piece of DCU literature has become standard practice on my part. 
    You just never know when you're going to need it.  I'd prefer not to
    have to do it though.
    

    Re: .-1
    
    I can't recall exactly her words, but the very strong impression I
    received was she had read the statements over the weekend, but she was
    not personally involved in any negotiations as to the final wording at
    the time I talked to her.
    
    I did not ask her whether or not she had suggested changes when she had
    read the statements, and she did not say. She certainly didn't sound
    familiar with Phil's statement, and she explicitly thought it improper
    to discuss any particular statement with me.  I agreed with her on that
    last point.

	I'd like to thank everybody who voted for me in the DCU election.
	Without your active role in the democratic process, none of
	this could have happened.  It clearly shows that the ballot of 
	an informed voter can indeed make a difference.  I promise to work
	my hardest to carry through on the reforms and ideas I have proposed
	for DCU.  I also welcome any ideas or feedback.  Only with the active 
	participation of the DCU membership can DCU truly be a great credit 
	union and that is my goal.

	I would also like to thank all of the dedicated people who helped in
	many ways throughout the entire process.  Each step along the way,
	people came forward to help the democratic process work the way
	it was meant to work.  With so many caring and committed people, I'm
	sure the future of DCU is a bright one.  I'd also like to thank the
	hundreds of people who took a moment of their time to write words of
	encouragement and support.  They kept me focused and on track.  I never
	doubted for a moment what we were trying to accomplish.

	I am excited about the future of DCU and hope others are as well.  I 
	believe the membership has spoken and they have chosen change.  I hope
	to help start that change on Monday.  However, being a realist, I must
	recognize that DCU will not be turned around in a day or a month.  There
	are changes which can be made soon but there are some which will require
	more time, but they will eventually come.  I will continue to 
	communicate to all as I have in the past so that you know where I stand
	on issues that concern DCU.

	DCU has gone through a very difficult period.  Many members have left
	and brought their business elsewhere and many members stayed but
	only in a small way.  I hope that the results of this election encourage
	you to return to YOUR credit union.  I hope all of the changes we will 
	be making keep you at YOUR credit union.  Also, please talk to those 
	that have left DCU completely.  We'll need everybody back on board.

	Thanks again,
	Phil Gransewicz

    Phil,
    
    For those of us outside of the GMA, who probably won't get a chance to
    run into you in the hall somewhere, how *do* you pronounce your last
    name?
    
    Richard (Kit-TEL)
    

    
    GRAN-sa-wits is the most common.  grin-SEV-vitch for those from the old
    country.  And yes, it's Polish.  But I'm half French too...
    
    
    
    the left half.... ;-)
    

    re: French/Polish
                                     Denny