Conference 7.286::dcu

    Another reason to kick out the most of the existing BoD.
    
    Bob

    I hope that the minutes include a precis of the various arguments
    and positions, including the facts cited for and against.  The
    obvious fact in favor is the record profits we've been making.
    It'll be very interesting to see what opposing facts (if any)
    were cited by those who voted against.
    
    		Thanks,
    		Larry
    
    PS -- I serve on a couple of committees, and about the only times I
    abstain from voting are when I don't think the issue is important
    or when I don't feel qualified to make a decision on that subject.  
    I wonder what Paul Milbury's reason for abstaining was?

my turn to be devil's advocate here ...

While the matter is important that the membership should know about this,
I do question the propriety of entering it here, unless the board as a
whole felt it reasonable to disclose it prior to minutes publication and
gave Phil such permission.

Now as to facts supporting / against ... we have never seen any of the
discussion or the vote reasoning in any prior minutes, so I doubt they'll
start now.

Stuart

    This is an election year, Stuart...

    
    Back sometime ago Phil reported that Chuck Cockburn 
    is on record as being against dividends.  I'll bet 
    that's the reason.
    
    Steve
    

    
    >PS -- I serve on a couple of committees, and about the only times I
    >abstain from voting are when I don't think the issue is important
    >or when I don't feel qualified to make a decision on that subject.  

    I never let an issue being unimportant stop me from voting. :-)
    However, besides not feeling qualified to make a decision (a very valid
    reason to abstain) I would also abstain if I felt a conflict of
    interest. The latter is probably not the case here. I wish that minutes
    showed the reason for an abstention. I've always felt the need to
    explain my abstentions even more then my ayes and nays.

    		Alfred

    I remember getting dividend bonuses. It's one of the things that made me
    really like to DCU in the early days. Unless we're doing worse then
    we were back then, in which case show me the numbers, I don't really
    understand why we shouldn't get a dividend bonus now. I do hope to
    read some explanation in the minutes.

    			Alfred

    
    If a DCU member walked up to me and asked if we had considered fees and
    what the vote was, I would tell them because there is nothing of a
    confidential nature involved.  There is nothing that states that this
    information or the disclosure of the information must await posting of
    the formal minutes.  As I stated, the minutes will contain the official
    motion, vote and writeup.
    
    This is a very important issue to me and many others.  It gets down the
    very core of what DCU is or should be.  Mr. MacNeal is correct in that
    there is an election in progress and members do have a right to know
    important information on issues in order to make an informed decision. 
    

    
    Re: .6
    
    I agree.  From my experience on a schoolboard I learned there are no
    unimportant issues only ones that have more or less importance than
    others.  IMO, an abstention should always be accompanied by the reason
    for it.  It helps to ensure that people don't duck the tough decisions
    for political reasons.
    
    Steve
    

    
    I also forgot to mention that all this was discussed and "concensus
    reached" at our Planning Conference in Oct. (I believe).  Since no
    minutes were published of that 2 day meeting, DCU members are unaware of
    the discussion and this "concensus".  So in reality, this is very old
    news, not very early news.
    

    I think it is a little presumptuous to expect people to draw conclusions
    from a vote without knowing the reasoning behind that vote.

    
    If anybody needs any additional information they can of course get it
    from each Director.  What has changed there?  Do you think the minutes
    are going say everything that was said?
    
    Also, I know of nothing preventing any of the other Directors from
    discussing their vote in here or anywhere else?  I know for a fact that
    several of them do read this conference.  I don't understand why they
    choose not to actively participate.
    

    Voting records are facts.  Are we only supposed to pay attention to
    facts that come from management?  
    
    As for the reasons each director had for their votes, I'll be happy
    to listen to any explanations that are offered.  If none are offered,
    that too is a fact.
    
    	Enjoy,
    	Larry
    
    PS -- I mostly read notes files to learn things.  Certain people could
    learn some things about how committees really work if only they'd
    listen and then believe at least some of the evidence that is presented.
    For my part, I keep relearning how hard it is to convince people of 
    things that they don't have direct experience of.  It's an important
    lesson;  I must try to keep it in mind.  LS

    I guess Larry is talking to me.  Having been on several committees and
    3 different Board of Directors I think I have a pretty good idea how
    they work and how they should work.
    
�                        -< not all facts are financial >-
    
    Unfortunately Larry is missing the point, as others have.  If I do
    accept Phil's definition of "fact", I still don't see that those facts
    have been effective in supporting his case.  I am merely suggesting
    that a different approach may be required since the present approach
    obviously hasn't worked.

    Well, I've been on a couple of boards, too... both of which have had to
    face declining membership and fiscal problems.  It's unclear to me just
    how much of what I saw and see is transferrable from them to the DCU
    board.  I can say, however, that if I see the DCU board acting too much
    like the ones I've been involved with, I'll be looking for another
    place to park my paycheck.
    
    Dick

    
>    I am merely suggesting
>    that a different approach may be required since the present approach
>    obviously hasn't worked.
    
    And I have seen the light!  That is why I have decided to run for the
    Board with two other candidates that share a common philosophy and
    vision of DCU should be for its members.  I've learned my lesson.  I
    hope DCU members have also.
    

�    And I have seen the light!  That is why I have decided to run for the
�    Board with two other candidates that share a common philosophy and
�    vision of DCU should be for its members.  
    
    Start saying "Real Choices" and it's deja vu all over again.

    Re .-1
    
    As one of the candidates running on the SAME platform as Phil I object
    to your characterisation. This is NOT "deja vu all over again".
    
    The three of us have talked over our position and determined that there
    is an enormous amount of common ground between us. Read our joint
    statement if you weant to know what we stand for.
    
    "Real Choices" of two years ago was something different. That was a
    loose knit organization to get people onto the ballot through the petition
    process. There was no predefined criteria. Yes there was a joint
    statement. But that joint statement was a massive compromise and 2
    candidates, Lisa DeMauro Ross included, who were elected on it
    decided not to follow through on it. Specifically they:
    
    	- Voted for fees
    	- Voted to hide the fact that fees had been approved for a period
    	  of 6 months
    
    This time it is different. Chris, Phil and myself decided on a position
    statement before we decided to run on a joint platform. When we say
    we will oppose fees on basic services we mean it.
    
    Dave 

re:  .18

When Dave says that the old RC joint statement was a huge
compromise, he was being a master of understatement.  There were
*very* large and marked differences between several of us - especially
as regards the fee structure.  I believe that the 
language regarding "holding the line on fees" was written by
Lisa and Tanya.  The original text called for an end to fees in
very explicit terms.

Back when we did the Real Choices thing the atmosphere was very
different.  The nominating committee was less than even-handed with
folks back then.  Recall that they didn't even want to let Lisa
or Tanya run, much less Phil Gransewicz.  There was open hostility
between DCU and a segment of its membership.   In that climate,
the RC people welcomed anybody into the folds who indicated a desire
to see things change.  That made good sense then, and accomplished
a great deal for DCU in that none of the previous incumbents were
elected back to the board.  On the other hand, the language in 
the joint statement was ambiguous enough that some participants
who were elected felt that there was no conflict between the
joint statement and an affirmative vote on fees.

The candidacies put forward by myself, Dave Garrod, and Phil
Gransewicz in this election are somewhat different.  Our joint
statement is very clear about where we stand and where we are
going.  The three of us share in common a philosophy regarding
how DCU ought to be run.  We are trying to articulate our views
with language that is as clear and unambiguous as possible.

Chris

RE: Note 744.17 by 38346::MACNEAL

Better phrasing would be:
    
>    Start saying "Witch Hunt" and it's deja vu all over again.

	- mark