Conference 7.286::dcu

    Any idea who sponsored this mailing.  If it was sent by John Sims, how
    did he get the addresses of all of the members of DCU.  If it was sent
    by my credit union, I have to wonder if this was an effective use of
    funds.
    
    Just wondering,
    
    Mark

>	Digital urges you to...
>	(3) familiarize yourself with the
>	credentials of those standing for election

	Well, there we have it, from no less a person than the Vice President 
	of Strategic Resources. Digital wants Digital employees to familiarize
	themselves with the credentials of those standing for election. So if 
	anyone gives me any grief about handing out information that contains 
	the credentials of those standing for election, I'll tell them I'm
	just helping John.

				Tom_K

    
    If it had just mentioned points 2, 3 and 4, this would have been a
    neutral "do the right thing" message. As published, it's more an official
    DEC position that favors the candidates by nomination while continuing
    to duck the real issues.
    
    Sort of a "Do the right thing -- (not)"    [(not) is whispered]
    
    I'm disappointed -- sadly, not suprised, but disappointed.
    

I just got home (I'm on vacation time today) and found out that both my
wife and I received the text contained in the base note via US mail today.

The envelope is marked "Digital Equipment Corporation, 146 Main Street,
Maynard Massachusetts 01754-2571".  So it wasn't the DCU or a private
individual who sent it.

My wife is not a Digital employee, though she and I are both DCU members.
So it wasn't sent to a database of Digital employees.  

The text says "Digital urges you to (1) read the Report of the DCU
Nominating Committee which discusses the qualifications used to select
nominees for DCU's Board positions."  The Nominating Committee has 
elsewhere said (repeatedly) that they picked the "best" candidates.  

Is there anything that isn't clear about this mailing?

	Larry Seiler

PS -- It was sent bulk rate -- 24.8 cents instead of 29 cents.
Is that more evidence that the DCU didn't send it?  :-)

    I am not disappointed.  The way I read John's memo he is asking people
    to get out and vote for this election.  No matter what his intent
    (which is what I read being questioned here IMO), I think he is asking
    people to do what they need to do to pick people that will best
    represent them on the DCU BoD.
    
    Let's try to focus on the fact that it is everyone's best interest to
    vote for those you think will represent you best on the BoD.

Several people have written to me about how the John Sims letter got to me.
Although I mentioned a postmark in the title, I neglected to make it clear.

It arrived via US mail, at my home address.  (Which happens to be a PO Box.
That's the address DCU uses for my statements, of course.  It's also the
address Digital uses.)

As Larry says in .4, the envelope is Digital stationery, "146 Main Street,
Maynard", etc.  Although that does not necessarily mean to me that DCU
didn't mail it, especially since it had to have been DCU's mailing list which
was used, given that Larry's wife got a letter.  (Rathole:  although it isn't
clear whether Digital's money or DCU's money went for the postage, I'd think
that someone, either Digital stockholders or DCU shareholders, might want to
better understand why $38,000 of SOMEONE's money needed to be spend on a memo
which merely says "vote".  I was going to do that anyway.  :)

My letter was evidently different from Larry's, though, in that it was first-
class metered mail -- the full 29 cents.

Incidentally, I thought it curious that the postmark was Jaffrey, NH.  I don't
get much mail from Jaffrey.  But I'll give good odds that in the next day or
two I get another envelope via exactly the same route  (the ballot).

.5>      I am not disappointed.  The way I read John's memo he is asking
.5>  people to get out and vote for this election.  No matter what his intent
.5>  (which is what I read being questioned here IMO), I think he is asking
.5>  people to do what they need to do to pick people that will best
.5>  represent them on the DCU BoD.


What stood out for me from his letter was (1):

   "read the Report of the DCU Nominating Committee which discusses the
   qualifications used to select nominees for DCU's Board positions"

I expect this "Report" to be a campaign statement.  I wish the candidates
nominated by us, the membership, were going to be given a similar opportunity.

I'm not disappointed either.  I interpret his letter as asking people to
focus their attention on the Nominating Committee's preferences, and on
"qualifications" and "credentials".  Those things are important, but so are
statements of direction and principle, as is track record of incumbents, and
as were constitution and conduct of the Nominating Committee.  John Sims's
letter would have people ignore those things.

    Tangent to DCU, but...     
    One has to wonder why DEC shareholders aren't given the same
    get-out-and-vote rah-rah from upper management when it comes
    time for the company's own annual meeting proxy.
    
    Could it be that if shareholders voted, that the collection of
    non-shareholding tired old white octagenarian males that DEC
    has as a board might come under some pressure?  And if they
    started to represent shareholder's interests like a COMPAQ or
    Data General board, that upper management could find itself
    with the same fate as a Canion or DeCastro?
    
    

re:  Last Few...

I'm disappointed that the memo was sent because it is clearly an
endorsement by a high-ranking official within Digital of only those
candidates whose names were placed in nomination by the nominating
committee.  Without a balancing statement by petition candidates (whether
or not they are petition candidates), it would appear, in my opinion
with no attempt to impune Mr. Sims reputation, that Mr. Sims is saying
that the nominated candidates are more qualified than those running
by petition.

The NH postmark is interesting.  My Special Meeting announcement was
postmarked somewhere in NH.  This says to me that the letter was sent
on DCU's mailing list.  Does the letter clearly state anywhere that
the source was not DCU?  In written correspondence to Phil Gransewicz
and myself, DCU agreed to mail material to all members provided
that the material acknowledge that it was not sourced via DCU, and 
that we subject it to DCU's editing, and that we, of course, pay 
big bucks to send one page.

This is very disappointing.  Digital has entered the fray, so to speak,
clearly on the side of nominated candidates.  Sim's letter is on DEC
stationery, so I can only conclude that his memo constitutes an 
endorsement by the Corporation. 

./chris

    So what has changed here people?  It can be stated in one word,
    *nothing*.

    The week before the Special Meeting Digital's Treasurer Ilene Jacobs
    steps forward and endorses the current board on VTX and over the
    network.  Warnings of dire consequences should they be removed.  Now
    where was Digital P&P then?
    
    Now we have a direct mailing, on Digital letterhead from a
    Vice-President with questionable intent in my opinion based on the time
    of its arrival (with ballots).  As a petition candidate, his message
    fails to mention my (as well as 10 others) candidacy while urging
    people to read the Nominating Comm. statement.  Any guesses as to what
    our 'independent Nominating Comm.' will say?
    
    As a Digital employee and stockholder I have to ask, "Is this appropriate 
    use of Digital Equipment Corp. money at a time when we are laying
    people of and posting losses?".  As a DCU owner and board candidate I
    have to ask, "Why is Digital again attempting to influence an election
    concerning DCU?  Why are they SO vested in the status quo?".
    
    

I just spoke to Patti - she said that John Sims purchased the DCU mailing list
to send out his letter in the same way that we could - by paying $20K to
$30K or whatever the exact figure is and going to a mailing house.

    >> concerning DCU?  Why are they SO vested in the status quo?".
    
    I've been wondering that too, considering the mess the status quo 
    managed to get DCU into.

    So how could they send it out on DEC letterhead? 

>I just spoke to Patti - she said that John Sims purchased the DCU mailing list
>to send out his letter in the same way that we could - by paying $20K to
>$30K or whatever the exact figure is and going to a mailing house.

Cool....who wrote the check?  Did my employer pay for this ringing
endorsement of nominated candidates?  The letter appeared on company
letterhead.  Usually stuff on corporate letterhead implies "this is
what the company says."

./chris
Who-ain't-got-$30,000

I don't have proof of this, but I speculate that DEC paid for it because
it's on DEC stationery, as well as John endorsed the nominated candidates
*IN DIGITAL'S NAME*.

In my opinion, the letter is not an overt endorsement. I beleve, however,
that the letter implies an endorsement of the nominated candidates.
To paraphrase, he said:
    1) read the report discussing the qualifications used to select candidates
    2) familiarize yourself with the credentials of those standing for election

I agree that the credentials of the nominated candidates are quite
excellent. But then the current board is made up of people with excellent
credentials. Excellent credentials don't necessarily equate with an
effective board. 

Since we don't have an extra $25K hanging around, we can't let the
membership know. Sigh.

    
    Another damn good question for you all to ponder.  John Sim's
    references "the report of the DCU Nominating Committee which discusses
    the qualifications used to select nominees for DCU's Board positions".
    The election material sent out by DCU for the last 4 years contains no
    such "Report".  How does Sim's not only know the it *has* one but that
    *what it says*???
    
    Seperate entities or is DCU a seperate division of Digital?
    

	So DEC paid $20K-$30K to DCU for the list, and then on top of that
	paid ~$26K for postage to actually mail it (plus stationary costs)?
	Or was did the $20K-$30K paid to DCU include stationary and postage?

					Tom_K

Phil & I sent mail to DCU requesting access to the
mailing list.  They wrote to us that they would
take our text, provided we submitted it for edit,
and clearly acknowledged that it was not sourced
by DCU, duplicate it, and mail it "on our behalf"
for a sum of money around (don't have the letter
here today) $20,000.

That would be for a one-page document.  Our requests
for a version of the list on magtape was flatly
refused at any price.

./chris

    
    I don't care how much Sims paid for the list.  I'd like to know why the
    DCU is selling a mailing list of its members to *ANYONE*!  I get enough
    crap in the mail that I don't want.  Does this mean that some mail
    order business with $20K can purchase the DCU list?  If not does this
    mean that the $20K is just a token so the DCU can disclaim any
    collusion with DEC to influence the outcome of the election?
    
    Compared to how mad I am now I was happy before!
    
    Steve
    

    Consider the following possibility.  The DCU won't give out its list to
    the REAL CHOICES folks because it has a policy of not giving out its
    list to anybody.  (Actually, I think I like that idea, however
    inconvenient it may be in this case.) Therefore, the only way to use
    the list is via a mail-order house that is known to treat the list
    confidentially. That would reasonably absolutely everything that has
    happened.

    It does assume there is a mail-order house that does treat the lists it
    receives confidentially, but I'm willing to believe that one of those
    exists.

I find it interesting to note that 345 in the "... $345 million ..." is of
a different typeface than the rest of the document.  Did DCU edit the mailing
and add/modify this figure?

    Re .20
    
    As has been pointed out elsewhere the "REAL CHOICES" support group did
    inquire about using the DCU mailing list. We were told we could use
    it through a mailing house for about $25K. Unfortunately we don't have
    the deep pockets that Digital the corporation has so couldn't come up
    with the $25K.
    
    I fail to understand why it is in Digital's Business Interest to use
    money simply to tell DCU members to vote. For those of you that say
    that this is an endorsement of the "nominating committee" candidates
    note that the Sim's memo skirts right on the edge of endorsing them,
    instead pushing it off to the "Nominating Committee Statement".
    
    I'm waiting in anticipation to see what this "statement" says in the
    election flier. I bet reading between the lines it is going to say
    something like:
    
    "Vote for the nominated candidates. Don't even think of considering
     those 'petition' candidates listed at the end."
    
    We'll see.
    
    Dave

    re: .20 trustworthy "mail-order house"
    
    The normal procedure in the direct mail marketing industry is this: 
    Company A rents its mailing list to Company B.  B never sees A's
    mailing list.  Instead, bonded Company C makes up labels from A's list,
    applies them to B's flyers, then sends them out in the mail.
    
    These bonded mailing companies survive only because they can be trusted
    to keep lists confidential.
    
    DCU is following industry standards here.
    
    Wes

Sorry I wasn't clear before. The $20K-$30K quoted previously is how much it
would cost if *any* DCU member wanted to communicate with the members about
the election. You pay the money (depending on whether it's 1st class or
bulk), give DCU one copy of what you want to send out, and DCU contracts with
the mailing house to get it sent out. They won't release the magtape
directly to anybody other than the mailinghouse.

Further clarification to avoid unnecessary flames -
my understanding is that DCU doesn't rent its list out
for non-business purposes.  Our request for the
list was directly related to the election.
./chris

	I'm too new to Digital and to DCU to know this, but did the Office
	of Vice President, Strategic Resource (which Mr. Sims now holds) send
	out similar memos to all DCU members at previous elections also?

	If yes, then I see nothing wrong with this time.

	If no, then I have to wonder why this election is special.

	Would any of you oldtimers know about the precedents?

I'm not an oldtimer (3 years), but in previous 
elections I've voted in, there has been no such
mailings.

/chris

    I've been a DCU member since 1982.  It's never been done before.

I've been a member since DEFCU was formed. This has never hppened in the past.

-Jack

I called Ron Glover to register a formal complaint. He had just returned
from a business trip and had not seen the John Sims memo so I appended it
to the end of this message (I'll leave it out here since it's at .0).
Ron promised to meet with me tomorrow. I sent it to Ron, with a CC to
John Sims (as Ron suggested):

   I received  a  letter sent by John Sims to DCU members today.  I am very
   concerned  about this letter because many people will take the letter as
   Digital  *the  company*  endorsing the nominated candidates.  While some
   may say that the letter skates on the very edge of a direct endorsement,
   I   believe   that   this  letter  is  a  violation  of  the  spirit  of
   non-involvement  by  the  corporation  in  the  DCU election, especially
   because  John  represents Digital and not just himself.  Furthermore, he
   refers  to  the  DCU Nomination Committee report which I have never seen
   and doubt that anybody else outside of DCU and John have also seen.  How
   did John as a DCU member get ahold of this?

   I assume that Digital paid DCU for the mailing because the letter was on
   Digital  stationery  and  because  John said he represented Digital.  If
   this  is  true,  I  am  deeply disturbed that Digital funds were used in
   support of the nominated candidates in this way.  Incidents such as this
   have  caused the election to achieved an emotional pitch in the extreme.
   SMAUG::DCU  note  thread number 498 discusses John's memo so you can see
   for yourself what issues the memo has raised.  It was not my, nor any of
   my  associates'  choice  for  this to happen.  An endorsement by John in
   this  way,  similar  to  the  endorsement  by  Ilene Jacobs of the board
   previous  to  the  special  election  *in the name of Digital*, can only
   serve to raise the emotionalism of this election.

   I believe  that  John's  memo represents an endorsement of the nominated
   candidates   because  it  stresses  the  importance  of  the  nomination
   committee's   qualifications.    Nominated   candidates   are  obviously
   qualified under these guidelines, and the candidates by petition did not
   qualify.   Therefore, it's clear from John's letter one should vote only
   for   candidates   that  did  qualify  under  the  nomination  committee
   guidelines.   Note  also  that  the nomination committee itself violated
   DCU's  Election Guidelines and thus may not even be qualified to endorse
   candidates in the first place.

[John's letter follows]

There is a part of .30 that I cannot see:

.30> Therefore, it's clear from John's letter one should vote only
.30> for candidates that did qualify under the nomination committee
.30> guidelines.

His letter clearly states that we should consider what the Nominating Committee
used in considering candidates.  The key word is 'CONSIDER'.  No matter how
strong he urges it, it is still a WISH that we CONSIDER their criteria.  It does
not mean the expression 'OBEY' as you are infering in your statement by saying
'...SHOULD vote...'.  The reader is still free to vote for whomever they wish.
I certainly will, nominated or petition, look at all candidate's qualifications
and vote for the best.

Emotions are running very high in this election.  It is very easy to read some-
thing into a letter that is NOT there.  True, some people will take him up on
his suggestion, but ONLY BECAUSE they have the FREEDOM to believe he is RIGHT.
That freedom seems to scare some people including yourself.  The bottom line is
that they are still free to vote for whomever they wish.  He is not telling any-
one they SHOULD vote for anyone.

P.S. My letter was also from Jaffrey NH with 24.8� postage.

    
    On the plus side: my wife (DCU member, not DEC employee) showed me her
    copy of the letter yesterday evening. When I asked her if mine came,
    she said, "Yes, but it's not important -- it just says to read the
    information and vote."
    
    On the minus side: after a few minutes, she wondered aloud, "Why does
    Digital care about the credit union election?"
    
    Regardless of the words chosen in .30 and .31, it cannot be disputed
    that the letter shows a strong interest in the credit union by Digital
    Equipment Corporation. It cannot be disputed that John has used his
    position within the corporation, the corporate name, and by inference
    the corporate coffers, to advance the position of a subset of
    candidates, those nominated by committee.
    

    
    Re: .31
    
    The question is not whether anyone reading that letter can still
    choose whom they want, but whether Mr. Sims as a Digital officer
    using a Digital letterhead should have sent a letter to Digital
    employees who are also DCU members about *anything* with regard
    to the upcoming DCU election.
    
    It is inappropriate.
    
    Steve
    

	RE: Postmark costs. Mine came with a .29 postmark. The last four
	digits of the 9 digit zip were wrong though. I suspect that the
	cost of the "stamp" was based on being able or not to use sorted
	mail, sorted by 9 digits, and other random factors. 

	RE: Topic in general. My wife viewed it as a sleasy attempt to 
	get people to vote for the nominated candidates. She was also
	rather upset to get a letter from a Digital VP telling *her* a non
	employee what to do. I'd like to assume that she got this letter
	only because the DCU would not sort out the non-employees.

	In my opinion the push to read the Nominating Committee report is
	a defacto endorsement of it. This by extension supports the conclusion
	of the Committee. This is not, IMO, a proper thing for the company 
	to do. Especially if Digital and the DCU are as we've been told
	completely seperate organizations. The DCU doesn't, to my knowledge,
	attempt to affect Digital Board of Directors elections. I suspect the
	company would object if they did. It should work both ways.

			Alfred

    
    RE: .31
    
    Are you saying that there aren't any people out there that might not be
    influenced by Mr. Sims memo?
    
    

    John Sim's letter says ...

        Digital urges you to (1) read the report of the DCU Nominating
        Committee which discusses the qualifications used to select
        nominees for DCU's Board positions;

    Since I don't recall seeing any such report (except for commentary in
    this conference), I'm expecting to see this report as part of the
    candidate statements.  Has this been the practice in the past?

    -- Ward

    P.S.  I, like many other DCU members, haven't paid much attention to
    previous elections.  But this time the Clark family (4 voting members)
    can't wait to vote.

    
    I have copies of the election material sent out in the last 4
    elections.  The only statement is from former President Richard
    Mangone.  There is no "report" from the Nominating Committee.
    
    Maybe DCU President Chuck Cockburn gave up his statement so that the 
    committee could "report"?  I wonder if Mr. Cockburns message will say
    he participated in handpicking the nominated candidates?
    
    We'll have to wait and see what this 'report' is.  But isn't
    interesting the Nominating Comm. would give a scant 150 words to the
    candidates to help save mailing costs?  Anybody venture to guess the
    word count of the "report"?  Would the space have been better used for
    more candidate info?

	Let me see if I have this right..

		DCU sells its address list for   ~ 25K
		DIGITAL sends out a letter for   ~ 25K (postage)
                                                 -----
						 ~ 50K total out of DIGITAL's
							bottom line expenses.
	
	Does the ~25K DCU gets cover the printing costs with the
	outside contractors (ie stationary & envelopes)?  I would 
	assume it did, otherwise we are talking a lot more money..

	So, DIGITAL Equipment Corporation spent ~50K dollars to
	urge the Credit Union Members to read the literature and
	vote in the coming election.  

.35> RE: .31, Are you saying that there aren't any people out there that might
.35> not be influenced by Mr. Sims memo?
    
My .31 answers that question for you:

.31> ....  True, some people will take him up on his suggestion, but ONLY
.31> BECAUSE they have the FREEDOM to believe he is RIGHT.

	>Digital urges you to (1) read the report of the
	>DCU Nominating Committee which discusses the
	>qualifications used to select nominees for DCU's
	>Board positions;  (2) read the Candidates'
	>Statements;  (3) familiarize yourself with the
	>credentials of those standing for election and,
	>most importantly, to (4) vote.

	The problem with the above is that Digital is making the 
	DCU Nominating Committee standards for Candidates *the* *standards*
	by which a candidate will be judged. I expect the NC report
	to state that all NC nominated candidates meet that standard, 
	(otherwise they would have been nominated), and that no
	other candidates do (otherwise they would have been nominated
	by the NC). Sure, it's subtle, but if 5% of the members can be
	influenced in this way, that's 4400 votes, more than enough
	to swing the election.

						Tom_K

Re: .38
To clarify, it's only $25K (approx) for mailing. The $25K cost is what you
pay DCU and they send out the mailing. It's the full cost of anybody doing
a mailing to the DCU member list.

We also don't know for sure who paid for the mailing. Perhaps John paid for
it out of his pocket... :-)

    
    RE: . 39
    
    So you're saying it's OK for a Digital VP to influence an election
    involving another corporate entity?
    

re: 42

It might be ok for John Sims to state his opinion, but not in the name of
Digital Equipment Corp. (assuming John paid for this out of his pocket).

Mark

    Not on Digital letterhead with his name on position on it.  THAT'S
    company endorsement.

Mine said, "You got some junk mail about DCU."  I asked "What's it about?"
She replied--on the basis of reading her copy, "Some VP going on about
nothing."

The point is that many of us tend to scan "official communications" for
1) a check, 2) a demand for payment, 3) general menace (e.g. "Mumble,
mumble,...competitive...blah,blah...your health care benefits [alarms
clang loudly, stomach knots here]").  If the communication fails these
tests, we throw it away quickly in the hopes that we won't be buried
alive in our own homes under a mountain of paper.

The letter in question was very circumspect.  The reaction of the naive
public has been indifferent.  Maybe 5% will make a difference; maybe it
won't.  I'll try to remember to wear my "Real Choices" button and to talk
about it with people who ask.  What seems important now is to spread the
good word.  Some injustices are just too ineffectual to get upset over.
It's time to project some winning confidence in the justice of the cause.

\Joe

    RE: .31 (Milleville)
    
>P.S. My letter was also from Jaffrey NH with 24.8� postage.

    I expressly looked at the postage cost and it was $.29 for the one I
    received and the one my wife received.  Her first question was why is
    DEC wasting money in such a wasteful way.  Figure that the total cost
    will be around $25-$30k, including printing and paper/envelope costs.

    In times of belt tightening, it as the wrong thing to occur.

    	- mark

	I was going to dash off a comment in this note last night as soon as I
  received my letter but I thought it better if I slept on it.  My thoughts are:

  1) This is an official letter from Digital Equipment Corporation since it
  was sent in an official Digital envelope and was on Official Digital
  Stationary.

  2) The mailing list was obtained from DCU since it has my DCV #2 (my vanpool
  number) on it rather than what is in my Personnel file for a home address.

  3) Digital Equipment Corporation has an Official interest in the election to
  the Board of Directors of the DCU.

  4) John Sims being a Vice-President has enough in discretionary funds to
  fund the sending of this letter to DCU's mailing list.

  5) If John Sims is attempting to influence the outcome of the election by
  getting employees to vote for the nominated candidates, it is quite improper
  (if not an outright violation of his on P&P).  If he is trying to influence
  non-employees, it's none of his business.

  6) It occurs to me that there may be an attempt here to keep DCU in Senior
  Management hands and until its control.

  7) It would be something to raise at the next DEC Shareholders' Meeting as
  to why John Sims spend corporate money on this.

  8) The DCU is considered a company benefit and as such comes under John Sim's
  Management.  As such he can do what he wants.

  9) The letter was carefully sent out a few days before the ballots preventing
  anyone from having a chance (and the money) from responding to it to the same
  people who received the letter.

  10) I think that John Sims may have misculculated the effect that this letter
  may have on the electorate in general and employees in particular.  If
  anything, if I had been intending to vote for one of the nominated candidates,
  this would have encouraged me to switch my votes, after all "effective
  governance of the DCU by its Board of Directors is critical to us all".

  11) John Sims apparently has read the Report of the DCU Nominating Committee,
  which no other DCU member has (except maybe the BOD), according to comments
  in this notes conference.  Either that means the Report is being sent with
  the ballot materials (a first for DCU), in which case he must have seen the
  ballot materials (something the DCU and BOD should not be doing) or it was
  provided to him separately giving ghim information that noone else has.

  12) If I were John Sims I'd worry about how DEC's Board of Directors is going
  to look at this attempt to influence an election.


		Danny

    I am waiting to receive this letter. My wife should get one also. I am
    going to make sure that the letter states what has been written here.
    If so, my wife and I will talk it over.
    
    	If she gives me the ok, I am going to call Ken Olsen's secretary
    and ask why such a thing is being allowed to happen. What about Ken's
    well published rules of conduct to be adhered to by all employees.
    
    Will keep you posted.
    
    Dave
    

    
    RE: .47
    
    Excellent writeup!
    
    I am on vacation today but went to SHR1 cafeteria from 11:30 - 1:00pm.
    The reception is great among DCU members.  I enjoyed speaking with many
    voters and got what I got consider a great idea (more later) as a
    result of speaking with a member.
    
    As for the point about the letter backfiring, you are absolutely right. 
    Almost everybody we spoke to mentioned it and questioned its intent and
    wondered why Digital was spending money on it.  I think it will have
    the same affect on voters that a similar outside influence attempted to
    have on Arizona voters a few years back.
    

    	A tip of the hat to the eagle-eyed observer who noted the DIFFERENT
    type font for the 345 in the letter (that's 345 million in assets).  It
    appears that the number was filled in AFTER the letter was created or
    was corrected at the last minute.  Very curious.
    
    	What's most interesting is that this number is much lower than the
    more commonly cited number of about 380 million.  I have to believe
    that the 345 is much more current than any other numbers generally
    available in monthly statements which lag considerably.
    
	I must admit that I don't find the letter from Mr Sims all that
    offensive.  It is peculiar in how much space is devoted to urge us
    to "read the Report of the DCU Nominating Committee ...".  He could
    have ended bullet number (1) right there.  Peculiar.
    
    	All things considered, I have to question why there are so many
    strange things happening to influence the election.  I do have a bit
    of advice for those actually elected.  It is possible that you may
    discover past practices that were questionable, once you have greater
    access to the DCU files.  I would encourage you to do NOTHING which
    would prevent you from disclosing what you find of an illegal nature.
    Please don't sign any agreements which would tie your hands in any way.
    For example, let's suppose that you discovered loans which you believe
    were illegal (for whatever reason).  If you agree to keep confidential
    information pertaining to individuals (and individual loans), you may
    discover that you cannot easily prosecute any wrongdoing and/or discuss
    it in this file.  I'd like to suggest that you avoid that problem by
    not signing away rights which you might like to retain!
    
    Cheers!
    Dave Eklund
    

    Clearly, if the D.A. came and said, "We are conducting an investigation
    and request that you make no statement or even acknowledge that you
    know about such-and-such activity," I would expect any board member
    to be responsible enough to keep quiet.  (I would also expect any
    board member to make VERY certain the investigation happened!)
    
    I assume that's not what you are suggesting, however.  I assume you
    are talking about (for example) A Very Important Poobah In Charge Of 
    Something coming to a board member and saying, "Look, if this ever got 
    out it could be really embarrassing to so-and-so, and we expect you not 
    to talk about it."

My opinion on why so many strange things are happening around the election is
that it's really simple:  Power.

A bunch of fairly senior managers "own" DCU, and they don't want to have to
give it up to anyone, including the people who really own it.

Just my opinion.

I just got confirmation from Patti D'Addieco concerning who paid for the
"Sims" letter. She said that *Digital* requested the mailing and paid
the appropriate fee (documented elsewhere, on the order of $25K).
She would not tell me the actual person who requested the mailing.

Re: .51 and others
If I make it to the board, there are certain confidential pieces of information
which I would not be allowed to disclose I would respect that. But I would
fight any attempt to widen the set of data that must be protected beyond 
the bare minimum required by law. Also, if disclosure of certain
events would make the prosecution of any wrongdoing more difficult, I would
not disclose them, but would make sure the issues were prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law (at which time they would become public) no matter
who the wrongdoer was.

That said, I intend for the members to be aware of what happened and
perhaps the cause of the great interest by high Digital management in the
outcome of the election.

I think I have demonstrated my commitment to stand up to any Digital
manager at *any* level who might attempt to prevent me from "doing the
right thing" which in this case is the disclosure of what's *really* going on.
I think that commitment is of prime importance in this election.

    
    
    	Jusy my .02. Being asked to turn off lights, terminals and
    	printers to conserve energy and reduce energy costs I find
    	the spending of $25,000 an outrageous excess. 
    
    	Ever other light in some facilities is taken out, why?
    	To SAVE cash, and this MANAGER decides to spend 25K of
    	company cash to push his vavorites in an election!! Sounds
    	like another day at the ANIMAL FARM...to quote "some are more
    	equal than others".
    
    	makes me ill
    	rth

    Several folks have suggested raising some questions at a DIGITAL
    stockholder's meeting.

    According to the conversations in the DIGITAL conference, this appears
    to be an extremely career-limiting thing to do.

    One possible way to achieve this is to recruit former or soon-to-be
    former (SERP anyone) employees, who are still DIGITAL stockholders to
    raise the issues there.

    Presumably, they would be immune from retaliation (altho nothing would
    surprise me anymore).

Question:  How many average employee salary actions can be funded
           by $25,000?

Think about it....

./chris

    
    RE: .55
    
    >One possible way to achieve this is to recruit former or soon-to-be
    >former (SERP anyone) employees, who are still DIGITAL stockholders to
    >raise the issues there.
    
    I have a feeling there will be no need to recruit anybody for this.

    I sent mail to Ron Glover on Tuesday morning saying that I had
    questions about whether the Sims letter conflicted with PP&P and asking
    several specific questions.
    
    48 hours later,  I have not received any acknowledgement that my
    inquiry was even received.

�    We'll have to wait and see what this 'report' is.  But isn't
�    interesting the Nominating Comm. would give a scant 150 words to the
�    candidates to help save mailing costs?  Anybody venture to guess the
�    word count of the "report"?  Would the space have been better used for
�    more candidate info?
    
    Do you really think the average voter would read in its entirety a
    statement of more than 150 words?

    Re: .-1
    
    They would if it were interesting, and allegations of scandal by
    insiders are always interesting.
    
    Resumes are not interesting.

>    Do you really think the average voter would read in its entirety a
>    statement of more than 150 words?
    
    The average person who CAN vote will NOT vote.  The people who vote are
    the people who usually pay attention and read what is available.
    
    	- mark

    Re .59:

    I believe the voters span a wide range, from those who will vote for the
    first seven people in the statements booklet (or the first seven people
    on the ballot, which is ordered differently), to those who will try to
    understand the issues as best they can. But it's a poor excuse to limit
    the statement to 150 words simply because the "average voter" won't read
    more than that. DCU knew that there was more to talk about this time
    than experience. They knew that limiting the statements to 150 words
    would force candidates to choose between listing "qualifications" and
    addressing the real issues. The nominated candidates chose to list
    qualifications; the petition candidates chose to address the issues;
    the real pity, and disservice to voters capable of reading more than
    150 words at a time, is that they were forced to make the choice at
    all.

    It's an even poorer excuse to limit the size of the statements because
    of mailing costs (a reason cited to me by DCU), only to produce a
    separate and unprecedented mailing to advertise the names of the
    nominated candidates.

    I had an employee express his concern over the Sims  memo and his
    badge number appearing on the ballot.  In these days of hard to find
    jobs, this is strong arm tactics.  Employees will choose their job
    over the DCU.
    ed
    

.62> But it's a poor excuse to limit the statement to 150 words simply because
.62> the "average voter" won't read more than that.

I agree.  I wonder what percentage of those who ARE going to vote have INSTEAD
read all the candidate's entries in #489.2+.  There they have all the room to
cover whatever they wanted.  Note that I was able to enter statements from the
petition candidates, but only a minority of nominated candidates gave me any-
thing to post.  If they read my VAXMail request for an entry to post and decided
to ignore it, maybe all they HAD to say DID occupy the 150 word limit!

    re .63  After reading the SIMS memo, I was so incensed that I changed
    my mind and didn't vote for any of the nominated candidates, where
    previously I was going to include at least one.  So the SIMS memo
    backfired as far as this voter was concerned.  Hopefully others like
    myself will make up for those voters that were intimidated enough by
    the letter to change their votes the other way.
    
    NOBODY tells me who to vote for, and NOBODY is Digital management
    should have anything to do with this election...
    

    
    Re: 
    
    Perhaps John Sims is a shrewd Real Choices supporter. ;^)
    
    Steve
    

         
    >Perhaps John Sims is a shrewd Real Choices supporter. ;^)
        
    Steve, you weren't supposed to tell anybody until *after* the
    election...  8-)
    

    It struck me yesterday, that since:
    
    	John Sims couldn't (shouldn't) have known about the NC report
    	DCU will not say who paid for the mailing (other then Digital)
    
    Maybe all John did was sign the letter.  Maybe someone else wrote it 
    and paid for the mailing, and only asked John to sign it.  John may 
    not have known that what he was signing may have had a hidden message, 
    like 'vote for the nominated candidates', in some peoples opinion,
    including mine.
    
    Just a thought...
    
    Mark

I spoke to Patti last week and she confirmed that Digital requested and paid
for the Sims' mailing. She would not tell me the name of the person who did
the requesting.