Conference 7.286::dcu

I think it is called "becoming a member of the establishment"

I appreciate your statement and your position, but you and the other members 
of the board are now part of the organization that we did not trust and you
have to build trust.

The matter of the trips being paid by the DCU is not important (at least to me)
but the fact that the board will not release the information is important.  It 
demonstrates the same arrogance that was displayed by the former DCU BOD.

Censoring information that makes the DCU look bad as opposed to confidential 
information or legal information is dead wrong.

	Paul,

	Thanks for the info. Making available the minutes of the BoD meetings
	will be a big step in gaining members trust. Would the BoD consider
	making public the schedule of BoD meetings, and allowing members
	to observe meetings (except if the Board needs to go into Executive 
	Session), or even to set aside a small portion of each meeting to
	hear from such members who care to attend?

re:	>but the fact that the board will not release the information


	Hang on, I don't think I heard anyone say that the board would not
	release the info, rather that they didn't think that finding the
	information was the best investment of their time. They seem open
	to be persuaded otherwise, and I have the feeling that if they
	do find the info they will not hesitate to share it.

					Tom_K

    Re .0:

>   For now,  the  best way to keep up with the status of the meetings is to
>   read  the  BOD  minutes.   The  formal minutes will always be at least a
>   meeting  behind  because  minutes must be typed, reviewed for accuracy and 
>   approved at the following month's meeting before they can be release. If 
>   corrections are required, the minutes will be delayed for an additional 
>   month.
    
    I understand not releasing the minutes of one meeting until after their
    approval at the next.  I don't understand why there's an extra month
    involved if a (usually minor) correction is made.  In the boards on
    which I've served, it's common to make minor corrections and to approve
    the minutes as corrected.  I could imagine a second pass if there were
    SERIOUS errors in the minutes as first presented, but that also implies
    that whoever is taking/preparing the minutes isn't doing their job.

Re: .1
I've been accused of may things in my time, but never being a member of
the establishment :-) :-) :-) :-)

I agree with you. But to reiterate what I posted in .0, please understand
the board has neither discussed nor decided anything yet with respect to
releasing information.

Suggestion:  Howzabout if Board members who participate in this conference
each set up a "no replies allowed" note to post their observations about
board deliberations and decisions that are public knowledge.  Then, have
a corresponding "discussion note" to talk and debate about what was said.
This way, it's easy to see each member's views in one place.  To me, this
would be helpful in evaluating board members views/activities and comparing
them to others.  

Just an idea...
./chris

	RE: .0 I knew that would happen. That's why I voted for people I 
	trusted. 

			Alfred

�   Now, however,   due  to  my  position  on  the  board,  I  am  privy  to
�   confidential information.  If I were to reveal some information, perhaps
�   the  prosecution  of the fraud would be adversely affected.  
�   If  I  were  to  unilaterally  reveal  information,  the
�   supervisory  committee  would be within their right, in fact it would be
�   their  duty to remove me, thereby beginning the unraveling of everything
�   we have worked for and accomplished over the past year.
�
�   I guarantee  that  I  will be advocating the release of more information
�   than  has  been released so far in the board meetings to come.  In other
�   words,  my  attitude  has not changed, but the parameters of my position
�   have drastically changed.
    
    I wonder what would have ensued if such a statement was made by prior
    members of the BoD.
    

	I know. And I know why. We didn't trust them. By their words and
	deeds they had specifically earned our mis-trust. So there was no
	way that we'd be placated by that type of statement. In contrast,
	I voted for the writer of .0 because I did trust him. And he hasn't 
	done anything to earn our mistrust. Yet. But I'm still watchin, so 
	toe the line, Paul :-)

					Tom_K

    Give the new board a break. Rome was not built in a day.
    
    Mellow out and give them a chance.
    
    DCU member who has faith that the new BOD will come through.
    
    DR
    

Re: .7
Actually, you're right. The first paragraph of your note does sound like
something the previous board might have said.
All I can do is ask for your patience until after the
board has had a chance to discuss this issue.

    
    I "knew" the old Board...
    
    I've seen the old Board...
    
    I've heard the old Board...
    
    
    
    Believe me, we aren't the old Board!
    
    And Paul sure as heck isn't one of the 'establishment'.  That comment
    must have been like a dagger to the poor guys heart!  I'm glad to see
    he has survived such cruel and unusual punishment... :-)
    

Let's do  a reset here.  I didn't come to mistrust the old Board quickly,
nor as a result of any single event.  For most of us, I think it was a
long drawn out process.  I and many others gave them the benefit of the
doubt for months on end, through some very strange events.  Eventually, I 
and many others reached a point where there just wasn't any more doubt for 
them to benefit from, so to speak.  But it took a long time to get there.

Now we have a new Board that is facing all of the old problems.  Let's
keep asking questions, but I would strongly urge everyone to try to go
back to where we were over a year ago.  Treat the Board like competent
professionsals who want to do the right thing.  Keep our eyes open for
evidence that they are not, but don't jump to conclusions.  

If you are like me, your willingness to trust was severly battered over
the past year.  But I ask that everyone make an effort to give the new
Board the same benefit of the doubt that we used to give the old Board.
In 6 months, we should have definite evidence of whether that trust is
justified.  Until then, let's mostly watch and ask questions.

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    I understand there are issues about which the new BoD can't yet talk,
    or are constrained from talking.  That's why it is important for them
    to give out information in areas where they can give out information.

    I don't expect the Martin Luthor questions to take top priority, but I
    do think it quite reasonable for at least one of those issues to get a
    straight answer from the new BoD.  Soon.

    So why not pick one or two and give a date when the answers will be
    available?

    I can't think of any reason for not saying precisely who paid for the
    Bermuda and Disneyland BoD meetings.  Start with that issue; perhaps
    the old BoD would appreciate it.	:-)

Re: .13 I agree with you that it's important to give out information,
but I can't make any guarantees. I can guarantee that I'll be
submitting that question (and others) for the agenda for the next meeting.

�But I ask that everyone make an effort to give the new
�Board the same benefit of the doubt that we used to give the old Board.
    
    Larry, I think they are getting it...

    
    RE: .15
    
    Naaaah.  I'll start worrying when the hypothetical comparisons start
    showing up!  ;-)
    
    
    
    Geez, even Keith, that stalwart bastion of BoD defense, is piling on. 
    That's it, I give up NOTING in here.  Even my asbestos rear-end can't
    take this heat...  :-)
    

Paul & Phil:

I think the perceived hostility you are seeing in here is due to a couple
of things:

	- Some of the statements and comments you have entered in here are
	  strikingly similar to those of the former BOD.

	- After all of the emotion, demands and promises that were made during
	  the elections, there is an impatience on the part of the membership
	  to address and resolve the primary election issues.

My suggestions:

	- Paul and Phil must understand that the emotion and strong desire to
	  uncover the truth are what got them elected and are what the voters
	  (aka membership) are counting on. I have noticed a marked decrease
	  in the inspired fervor that drove both of them during the elections.

	- The rest of us must just be a bit more patient. I trust the new BOD
	  to fulfill their campaign commitments and to lead us to a new era of
	  prosperity for the DCU. Imagine if you were the one that was elected
	  to become a BOD member. I shared much of the emotions with many of 
	  you during the last few months, but I do know it would be a strange
	  and unfamiliar environment for me to become a member of the DCU
	  Leadership virtually overnight.

Regards,

Jim

    Aw, gee.  I'm not hostile at all.  Only reason that I speak up is
    because I KNOW that BoD members Phil and Paul LISTEN and RESPOND.  This is 
    a far, far better situation than we had last year.  Would that ALL
    members of the BoD would respond as well as these two have during the
    past few months!
    
    I'm not responding because I'm mad at them.  I'm responding because
    they take my response seriously and provide feedback.  I bear not even
    a hint of hostility towards them.  If there is any hostility, it would
    be toward any BoD members that are not providing feedback to
    shareholders or who might not be putting forth the effort that Phil and
    Paul are.
    
    Steve

Re: .17
Yes, I understand the hostility. I'd probably be in the same boat if I
hadn't been elected. That's why I posted 560.0, even tho it was
mostly content free (or at least free of the issues that folks are
asking about), because I knew folks were awaiting results. Even tho it
didn't have the info you wanted, I felt it necessary to explain why we
haven't publicized any info yet.

I can assure you that much energy is being expended by the new BoD.
I've personally been over to DCU at least once a week since the election
and this week I'll have been over there several times. I've personally
been down to the cape once (and didn't charge DCU anything for it :-).

Your perception that our fervor has decreased is probably accurate from
your perspective because we are directing a lot of our energy now in the
positive (but not publically obvious) direction of rebuilding DCU.

And that's not to mention the energy we put toward our day job. :-)

	Few, if any, members are hostile.

	Many, however, are vigilant.

			Tom_K

    
    RE: .20
    
    Yes, a lot of bark and will bite only when necessary.  And DEFINITELY
    remain vigilant!  Apathy is what got us all into this mess.  Can you
    imagine what would have happened if somebody had demanded the auditors
    notes and Bylaws back in 1986?
    

	>Can you imagine what would have happened if somebody had demanded 
	>the auditors notes and Bylaws back in 1986?

	We'd have had an information protection policy 5 years sooner?

					:-)

						Tom_K

.17>	- Paul and Phil must understand that the emotion and strong desire to
.17>	  uncover the truth are what got them elected and are what the voters
.17>	  (aka membership) are counting on. I have noticed a marked decrease
.17>	  in the inspired fervor that drove both of them during the elections.
.17>
.17>	- The rest of us must just be a bit more patient. I trust the new BOD
.17>	  to fulfill their campaign commitments and to lead us to a new era of
.17>	  prosperity for the DCU. 
    
.19>  Your perception that our fervor has decreased is probably accurate from
.19>  your perspective because we are directing a lot of our energy now in the
.19>  positive (but not publically obvious) direction of rebuilding DCU.
    
    When I read .17 I felt it pointed up the dichotomy I'd perceived but
    had been unable to identify as I read the earlier replies.  It is:
    
    Did we elect a new board to unearth the skeletons in the closet from
    the bad old days?
    
    ...OR...
    
    Did we elect a new board to lead DCU back onto the path of
    righteousness?
    
    I was pleased to read Paul's reply in .19 because it said he's chosen
    the path I'd favor.  Don't muddy the waters by claiming that confessing
    past sins is part of redemption, the question is which should be the
    priority.  It seems to me that rebuilding the organization is more
    productive, and I'm glad to see that Paul has expressed what I believe
    to be the correct priorities.

    
    I think DCU needs a combination of the two (rebuilding and
    accountability for past actions).  The rebuilding is going on as we
    speak.  However, there is still a dark cloud over DCU for many members.  
    It will only be removed when they perceive a real change in what they 
    are told.  If they believe membership money was spent for frivolous 
    purposes, they will continue to feel 'uncomfortable' doing business 
    with DCU.  It is the priority and urgency that these topics deserve
    that is the question.
    

    All of .24 was well said, Phil.  
    
    However, for me the "dark cloud" will be removed more quickly by my
    experiences doing business with the DCU than by empty words.  I think
    some of the postings here are worried that campaign promises prove to
    be more than empty words, and maybe there is reason for that after
    feeling burned by the candidates we previously elected to the BoD.
    
    I think that such feelings forget the real starting point for this
    campaign to reclaim our credit union.  It started because people felt
    shafted when doing business with the DCU.  Until that feeling changes,
    the clouds won't be removed.
    
    It seems to me that the new board has made a good start on policies. 
    My own recent experiences make me feel that the most urgent need now is
    to cultivate an attitude of excellance in customer service throughout
    the organization.  I'm not as concerned over establishing blame for
    past junkets (by a board since voted out of office and thus unlikely to
    repeat the transgressions) as I am by our inability to get clear
    answers to questions about loan escrow policies and other present and
    future customer service issues.
    
    I mention that issue because what I was told by the DCU staff at the 
    ZKO branch (after they'd had a long telephone conference) directly
    conflicts with what someone else was told, according to their posting 
    in this conference.  Such current confusion about how my business
    can be handled does more to make me "feel 'uncomfortable' doing 
    business with DCU" than any unaswered questions about past history.
    
    just my .02 worth, to set expectations...

� directly conflicts with what someone else was told,

It's possible that the two DCU people have been told different things and
the system needs to be fixed. I think it's imperitive that all DCU
employees have the same message. You can help fix disconnects like this
by calling it to DCU's attention. If you can't resolve it by talking to
DCU, I would encourage you to contact a board member of your choosing. Then
if/when it gets resolved, post it in this notes file. We could all use some
good news! :-)

RE: .7

>�   Now, however,   due  to  my  position  on  the  board,  I  am  privy  to
>�   confidential information.  If I were to reveal some information, perhaps
>�   the  prosecution  of the fraud would be adversely affected.  
>�   If  I  were  to  unilaterally  reveal  information,  the
>�   supervisory  committee  would be within their right, in fact it would be
>�   their  duty to remove me, thereby beginning the unraveling of everything
>�   we have worked for and accomplished over the past year.
[...]
>
>    I wonder what would have ensued if such a statement was made by prior
>    members of the BoD.

 Actually, I believe if the old board had made statements like this much
 earlier in the process, they could have mitigated much of the damage.
 Instead, [I believe] they built their own gallows by keeping silent for 
 the most part. Towards the end, it wouldn't have mattered..

 Phil, Paul, keep up the good work. Have patience with those of us who don't
 have patience. :-)

Bryan
 

    I am expecting the minutes to show how individual directors voted on
    most issues.  I want to be able to assign responsibility.

    I want to be able to call up individual members and discuss with them
    why they voted as they did.  If I see patterns in the voting of an
    individual member that I don't like, I want to be able to take
    individual action.

    (I'd like to point out to the secretary that he can request that the
    meeting proceedings slow down in order for him to capture the minutes
    accurately.  Look that one up in Robert's Rules.)

    I am going to be particularly concerned with issues involving how power
    is handled, issues like term limitations and the infamous information
    protection policy.

    re -.1
    
    Allow me to point out that individual votes are not normally recorded
    in the minutes of any body, unless a role-call vote is taken.  Look
    that one up in your RRoONR.

    
    Then I would like the BoD to institute the practice of taking a
    roll call vote when deciding on changes to the bylaws and issues
    raised by members (such as branch hours).
    

FYI, my town has a bylaw that minutes of School Board meetings must record
the vote of each individual member, unless it's unanimous.  The situations
are not the same, of course, but there's no reason why DCU Board members
cannot have their votes recorded in the minutes.  The question is, does this 
serve the members?  For matters of credit union policy, I think it does.  

	Enjoy,
	Larry

    
    IMO, step one in 'open and honest communication' is the recording of
    each *elected* director's vote.  How else will the membership be able
    to tell if a director says they advocate A, yet votes against A?
    
    Didn't we learn anything after the DCU-doesn't-invest-in-any-
    speculative-instruments statement?  There needs to be a way of
    verifying that actions correspond to stated positions. 
    

Each director can request that their name be recorded in the following manner:
	Please record my vote in the {affirmative/negative} in this matter in
	minutes by notating my name with the vote.