Conference 7.286::dcu

    Gee, what no sites outside the GMA?
    
    
    Just kidding guys.
    
    			Alfred

    Chris,
    
    What about OGO??
    
    Bharat S. Shah

Update on Site Visits:

Due to impending awful weather supposedly due in later today,
the site visit scheduled for MLO for tomorrow has been postponed.

Another date will be chosen following the storm.

Sorry for any inconvenience....

Chris

    There has been plenty of info posted in here on the Vision.  Any chance
    we'll get info on a Plan to achieve that Vision?

Keith:

Lots has been posted here about both vision and about future plans.

Since it's obvious that you've missed this stuff, perhaps the best
thing is for you to come to the HLO site meeting and meet personally
with Phil, Dave, and myself.  Maybe we can get to the bottom of
your concerns that way.

Chris

    I read the Joint Statement again.  I see alot of Vision.  I still don't
    see the Plan.  Yes I do see some action items, but I don't see the
    potential repercussions.  I see some ideas, but I don't see the means
    to implement them (beyond the "Elect us and we'll do it").

    
    Keith, a Board's role is to set the direction (vision) of the credit
    union.  It is then DCU management's role to propose implementation plans
    (within certain restrictions which the Board may place) to accomplish
    the vision.  The Board will then approve/modify/disapprove of the
    implementation plans.  Surely, since you have served on 3 Boards you
    recognize and are familiar with this process?
    
    But the KEY is that everything MUST start with the VISION.  Thank you
    for pointing out that you "see a lot of vision" in our Joint Statement.
    We appreciate your support.
    

    
    Keith, Phil just beat me to it. I was just going to post a reply and decided
    to read all the replies I hadn't read. So now I'll just add to Phil's
    reply.
    
    We are not in a position to define an exact plan. As Phil points out
    that is management's job and responsibility. The board should set
    general direction and take checkpoints to ensure that management is still
    moving in the direction of the vision. Management are the people with
    the detailed data and the depth and expertise to formulate and
    implement a plan that meets th vision set by the membership through
    their board of directors.
    
    I'll join Phil and thank you for recognizing that we have set forth a
    clear vision for the DCU. I look forward to speaking with you in
    person when we visit HLO. We were in MRO yesterday and the feedback we
    got from various members was overall very positive on our position.
    Not one person told us we were on the wrong track or was critical
    of our position (not that I heard anyway). A lot of people read our
    joint statement.
    
    Dave

    
    Re: .7 and .8
    
    Exactly; the BoD's job is the vision and the DCU's management is the 
    implementation.  In fact, it would be inappropriate for the BoD to define
    the plan.  *Any* plan should be developed by who will have to carry
    it out.  A common reason why plan's fail is where a team or organization
    is asked to implement someone else's plan.  There's no personal
    investment/ownership that way and, therefore, usually no commitment
    to it.
    
    Steve
    

    I think as we've seen so far, a Vision isn't enough.  Since you are
    relying heavily on Management to come up with the ideas and the data, I
    think we'll be right back here next election with the same problems.
    
    A Vision is fine.  I see a lot of similarities between your Vision and
    the Vision the current board and management seems to be working towards. 
    The main disagreements seem to be in the implementation.  It doesn't
    seem fair to me to just sit back and shoot ideas down and hide behind
    the "Well, we aren't supposed to come up with how it's done anyway".  

    
    Re: .10
    
    > I think as we've seen so far, a Vision isn't enough.  
    
    NOT ONE response to this note either stated or implied that a vision 
    is all this is needed.  In fact, they were very explicit about the need
    for vision followed by implementation.  The point is the vision and
    implementation are separate responsibilities, vision to the BoD and
    implementation to the DCU management.  THAT IS WHAT THEIR JOB IS
    AND WHAT THEY'RE GETTING PAID TO DO.
    
    When you come right down to it, the problem has been that the BoD
    has allowed DCU management to propose and determine what the
    DCU vision is.  That's a bit like letting the fox watch the hens.  
    
    Steve
    
    

>    I think as we've seen so far, a Vision isn't enough.  
    
    I agree!  It takes a Board majority DETERMINED TO ACHIEVE IT.  If
    elected, WE ARE DETERMINED TO ACHIEVE THE MANDATE THE MEMBERSHIP WILL
    HAVE GIVEN.
    
    >Since you are
>    relying heavily on Management to come up with the ideas and the data, I
>    think we'll be right back here next election with the same problems.
    
    That's right.  It is management's job to do this.  That is what they
    are paid for.  Their plans and ideas must be approved by the majority
    of the Board.  If Dave, Chris and myself are elected, I can GUARANTEE
    that we will not be back here next year discussing the nickeling and
    diming of the membership.  There will be a majority on the Board that
    want to remove fees on basic services.  It WILL happen.  Make no
    mistake about that or mislead people into thinking otherwise with
    statements like those above.
    
>    A Vision is fine.  I see a lot of similarities between your Vision and
>    the Vision the current board and management seems to be working towards. 
    
    I don't know why I waste my fingers responding to you Keith.  The above
    statement is one of the most ridiculous statements you've made to date. 
    Please detail all of the similaries and differences you see in the
    visions.  Like I told you, "relationship banking" was not a Board
    initiative.  Please clue us all in with the "vision" of the current
    Board?  I am dying to hear it.  You obviously know more than I do in
    this area even though I have served for two years on this Board.
    
>    The main disagreements seem to be in the implementation.  It doesn't
>    seem fair to me to just sit back and shoot ideas down and hide behind
>    the "Well, we aren't supposed to come up with how it's done anyway".  
    
    The problem IS THE VISION!  Change the vision, the implementation
    changes to meet the goals of the vision.
    
    
    Keith, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me what three Boards you have served
    on.  Your statements just don't match with serving on three Boards. 
    What were they and was your responsibility to oversee a management
    team?
    

�        -< No matter what we say, you simply take the opposite opinion >-
    
    You're either making yet another gross generalization, or you simply
    aren't paying attention.
    
�If Dave, Chris and myself are elected, I can GUARANTEE
�    that we will not be back here next year discussing the nickeling and
�    diming of the membership.  
    
    And if you aren't?  I've posted this question a few times and the
    silence is deafening.
    
�There will be a majority on the Board that
�    want to remove fees on basic services.  It WILL happen.  Make no
�    mistake about that or mislead people into thinking otherwise with
�    statements like those above.
    
    So what do you know about the upcoming election that I don't?  I
    haven't even seen a ballot yet and you're guaranteeing victory.
    
�    I don't know why I waste my fingers responding to you Keith.  
    
    I don't either since you're usually flaming, twisting, or trying to
    read things in that aren't there.  If you'd actually respond it might
    not be such a waste of your fingers.
    
�    Keith, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me what three Boards you have served
�    on.  Your statements just don't match with serving on three Boards
    
    Don't respond to the issues, attack the questioner.  Like I said,
    you're wasting your time campaigning for a position on a Credit Union. 
    You're talents would be much better employed in the Public sector.

>    You're either making yet another gross generalization, or you simply
>    aren't paying attention.
    
    Well, I guess it must be me and almost everybody else that reads your
    notes.  That's it, the rest of the world is wrong.  I stand corrected.
    
�If Dave, Chris and myself are elected, I can GUARANTEE
�    that we will not be back here next year discussing the nickeling and
�    diming of the membership.  
>>>    
>>>    And if you aren't?  I've posted this question a few times and the
>>>    silence is deafening.
    
    What needs to be explained here?  What don't you understand? 
    Obviously if the membership does not vote for a change then they will
    get more of the same.  And if that is what they want then that is fine. 
    I can live with the decision of the membership.  But up until now they
    have never had a clear and unmistakeable choice of direction for DCU.
    The election 2 years ago was clouded with many other issues.
    
�There will be a majority on the Board that
�    want to remove fees on basic services.  It WILL happen.  Make no
�    mistake about that or mislead people into thinking otherwise with
�    statements like those above.
>>>    
>>>    So what do you know about the upcoming election that I don't?  I
>>>    haven't even seen a ballot yet and you're guaranteeing victory.
    
    Guaranteeing victory???  What a classic Macneal out of context word
    twist!!  This is exactly what we are all referring to in your notes
    Keith.  The statement above is prefaced with "If Dave, Chris and
    myself are elected" but you conveniently removed that section above to
    arrive at a completely incorrect and invalid statement.  But again, I
    must be reading something into this that isn't there, right Keith?
    
    What is commited to happen is the roll back of FEES on basic services. 
    But you already knew that.  
    
>    I don't either since you're usually flaming, twisting, or trying to
>    read things in that aren't there.  If you'd actually respond it might
>    not be such a waste of your fingers.
    
    Keith, I have tried repeatedly to respond to your questions and issues.
    But facts provided are disregarded or discounted, you fail to provide
    facts to back up your own assertions and continue to misquote and twist
    nearly everything that is replied to you.  Sorry Keith but I'm not the
    only one that shares that opinion.  The whole world can't be wrong, can
    it?
    
>    Don't respond to the issues, attack the questioner.  Like I said,
>    you're wasting your time campaigning for a position on a Credit Union. 
>    You're talents would be much better employed in the Public sector.
    
    But you have held yourself out as a credible person in this area by
    mentioning this experience yet you provide no background and your
    statements indicate no understanding of a Board's role versus that of
    management.  You're the one that continually dodges questions put to
    you.  You state you don't qualify for credit union membership yet
    won't tell us the area you live in so we can suggest a credit union for
    you to use for comparisons.  You just don't like people asking you for
    the same level of facts and detail that you ask of them.  I guess to
    offer such information might lead you into a valid discussion.  Much
    easier to simply snipe and misquote each and every sentence people write. 
    Quite frankly, it does get old, very old.  Is this a hobby of yours? 
    Do you enjoy doing this?  Or we ALL wrong again?
    

    A few weeks ago, I made a conscious decision to avoid responding to any
    of .13's notes.  I will not hold it against any current/potential board
    member who chooses to make the same decision.
    
    Bob

    They're great for a good laugh though.

re:  .13

    
> �    If Dave, Chris and myself are elected, I can GUARANTEE
> �    that we will not be back here next year discussing the nickeling and
> �    diming of the membership.  
>     
>     And if you aren't?  I've posted this question a few times and the
>    silence is deafening.

Ok, let's go through the scenarios.  If Phil, Dave, and myself are 
elected to the Board, then there will be a 4-3 majority on the Board
which stands in opposition to fees on basic services.  At some point
early in the process, there will be a vote, perhaps 4-3, to remove
fees on basic services.  

If the three of us are not elected, then there most probably will not
be a clear majority on the Board who oppose fees.  The outcome of that
same vote is hard to predict.  It depends on how much concensus building
there is, and how carefully the Board listened to the membership.


> �There will be a majority on the Board that
> �    want to remove fees on basic services.  It WILL happen.  Make no
> �    mistake about that or mislead people into thinking otherwise with
> �    statements like those above.
>     
>     So what do you know about the upcoming election that I don't?  I
>     haven't even seen a ballot yet and you're guaranteeing victory.

Keith, your quotation from Phil's message is wholly out of context.  
Nobody here is guarenteeing a victory.  Clearly the decision will be
made by the membership.  While I'm more than happy to debate the 
issues with you, I would respectfully request that when you decide
to quote somebody that you at least quote them in the context
of what they're saying.

Chris

    
    So what 3 boards has MacNeal served on anyway? Just curious.
    

     >    <<< Note 760.18 by GLDOA::PENFROY "Just Do It or Just Say No?" >>>
     >
     >
     >   So what 3 boards has MacNeal served on anyway? Just curious.
    
    
    Surf Board
    Bread Board
    Sea Board
    
     Parhaps }8-)}
    
    Bill
    

�That's it, the rest of the world is wrong.  
    
    I didn't realize that a half a dozen or so noters in the DCU conference
    was the "rest of the world".  Forgive me if I have taken this out of
    context.
    
�    But you have held yourself out as a credible person in this area by
�    mentioning this experience yet you provide no background and your
�    statements indicate no understanding of a Board's role versus that of
�    management.  
    
    Well obviously not just anyone is qualified to ask questions of a
    Director of New England's largest credit union.

�If the three of us are not elected, then there most probably will not
�be a clear majority on the Board who oppose fees.  The outcome of that
�same vote is hard to predict.  It depends on how much concensus building
�there is, and how carefully the Board listened to the membership.
    
    Now we're getting somewhere.  I respectfully suggest that the Board
    listens to each other since they are members too.  I really don't think
    we need the antagonism and grandstanding that has gone on so far.

�    What needs to be explained here?  What don't you understand? 
�    Obviously if the membership does not vote for a change then they will
�    get more of the same.  
    
    So that I won't be accused of taking things out of context, let me ask
    a question.  Does that mean that if you are elected but you are in
    the minority on the board that you will not try to represent those who
    did vote for you?
    
    I for one do not subscribe to the "if it ain't broke don't fix it"
    philosophy.  I would hope that things could be done within the system
    to keep improving it.  If we are stuck with relationship banking I hope
    that the directors in place would work to make sure those relationships
    start paying dividends to the members.  I've mentioned things I'd like
    to see changed.  Unfortunately people would rather know where I live,
    what my phone number is, and other personal information and have missed
    them.

�    Guaranteeing victory???  What a classic Macneal out of context word
�    twist!!  
    
    My mistake.  I missed the link between Dave, Chris and Phil all being
    elected.  Thanks for pointing that out.  I read it a little too fast.

    If there weren't similarities between the Visions of the current board,
    and that of Phil, Chris, and Dave, would we be arguing about the
    definitions of carrot and stick?

    
    Re .22:
    
    You call it "antagonism and grandstanding".
    
    I call it a wish to see DCU return to the philosophy under which it
    was founded, and particularly for some directors who were supported in
    their campaign and elected based on their lip service to that
    philosophy to start delivering on their promises.
    
    And it is not enough for the directors to listen "to each other as they
    are members too." Such a board represents only seven members out of
    70,000. The board must also listen to the membership at large, and I
    submit that only two of them are doing that job with any credibility.
    
    If Phil, Chris and Dave are elected, we will have four directors, a
    simple majority, who will listen to the entire membership. Otherwise,
    we will have five directors who listen to themselves, or more
    probably to Chuck. I respectfully suggest that such is their track
    record to date.
    

    
    Re .25:
    
    It's a little difficult to answer you question, as there is absolutely
    no context for it in this string. Are you actively arguing with someone
    about the definitions of "carrot" and "stick"?
    
    The "carrot and stick" concept has been introduced by Chuck and endorsed
    by five directors in the absence of any evidence whatsoever that a
    "stick" is necessary to drive off "abusers" or whip them into
    submission -- indeed in the absence of any evidence that the term
    "abuser" is relevant at all -- and in spite of the fact that DCU has been
    more successful in recent past (before the whippings started) than ever
    before in its history.
    
    In that light, it is much less interesting to eplore the differences
    between "carrot" and "stick", and much more relevant to understand
    why the president had the gall to assume, and five directors the gall
    to accept, that a "stick" was necessary in the first place.
    

    
.23> �    Obviously if the membership does not vote for a change then they will
.23> �    get more of the same.  
.23>     
.23>     So that I won't be accused of taking things out of context, let me ask
.23>     a question.  Does that mean that if you are elected but you are in
.23>     the minority on the board that you will not try to represent those who
.23>     did vote for you?
    
    
    WHOOOOP!  WHOOOP!    Spin Alert!  Spin Alert    WHOOOOP!  WHOOOOP!
    
    The above statement has been subjected to excessive spin. Prolonged
    contact may result in diziness and nausea.
    
    
    ----------------------
    
    Perhaps we should take a look at Phil's track record, which (as has
    been made abundantly clear in the last two years) speaks much louder
    than words.
    
    Phil was elected. Much to one's chagrin, he turned out to be in the
    minority on many important issues. He has, however, ceaselessly worked
    (with Paul K.) to arrive at concensus, to wake up the board and the
    president to the wishes of the membership, to shine a little daylight
    on what other directors would hold as deep, dark secrets. Hd did not
    turn his back on his constituents in the face of what seems to be
    constant pressure and harrassment (accent on the second sylable, thank
    you) from much of the board.
    
    I expect and am confident that we will see more of the same dedication to
    his fellow members from Phil, as well as from Chris and Dave.
    
    And why do you consistently imply that we are "stuck with relationship
    banking"? You may be a proponent of favoritism for a select group of
    members, but we are no more "stuck" with that concept than we are
    "stuck" with the current board.
    

Keith,
	You have not answered the question:

		'What boards have you served on?'

	- mark

�    And it is not enough for the directors to listen "to each other as they
�    are members too." 
    
    I didn't say it was.

�    It's a little difficult to answer you question, as there is absolutely
�    no context for it in this string. Are you actively arguing with someone
�    about the definitions of "carrot" and "stick"?
    
    Go back a few.  Phil asked where I could possibly see similarities
    between the visions of the current board and that of the 3 candidates. 
    We've spent alot of time discussing if relationship banking is a carrot
    or a stick to get us to a healthy, prosperous credit union.  If there
    weren't similarities, would we even be dicussing whether or not we were
    luring people or beating people towards this goal?

�    The above statement has been subjected to excessive spin. Prolonged
�    contact may result in diziness and nausea.
    
    I guess I'm going a little too fast for you.  Sorry for the personal
    discomfort.
    
�He has, however, ceaselessly worked
�    (with Paul K.) to arrive at concensus, 
    
    Sorry, but I don't see that.  It looks to me like you either agree with
    him or you don't.  If you don't, tough.
    
�    And why do you consistently imply that we are "stuck with relationship
�    banking"? You may be a proponent of favoritism for a select group of
�    members, but we are no more "stuck" with that concept than we are
�    "stuck" with the current board.
    
    If what Phil said is true, if we do get "stuck" with the current board,
    we will be "stuck" with relationship banking.  I was hoping there might
    be an alternative or there might be a way to make relationship banking
    work better for the membership.

    
    Re .31:
    
    Another big stretch, Keith. There is no "is ralationship banking a
    carrot or a stick" argument. DCU can't take away something I had
    before, threaten to continue holding it back until I conform to their
    new rules, and then call it a "reward".
    
    The vision of the board, as documented in its actions over the past
    year. is a tiered system of membership where those
    who have get more, and dedication to numbers in books that make the
    credit union (and its directors and management) look good in the
    financial district but do nothing for the members. The vision of the
    Phil, Dave and Chris, as stated in note 739, is equality of all members,
    member satisfaction as the most important factor in the equation, and
    steady capital growth tempered by immediate rewards to the members.
    
    Night and day.
    

    
    	Once more Keith has skipped over the question that was asked in 
    .29, what boards have you served on?  It's becoming obvious to me that
    he's not answering for only one reason.


    Joe 

    
    After the re-institution of fees by the current Board, after
    recommendation by DCU management, it became very clear that both Paul
    and myself have a VERY different view and belief of what a credit
    union is.  The differences are NOT trivial and are VERY deep-rooted. 
    One simply does not "convince" another adult of something that they
    simply do not believe.  I would liken it to a person of one religion
    trying to convince a person of another religion that he is wrong.  It
    simply cannot be done and attempting it is a destructive process.
    
    What has become clear is that a simple majority on the Board, WHICH IS
    POSSIBLE THIS ELECTION, that believes in TRUE credit union philosophy
    will be able to make DCU the credit union that its members want and
    deserve.  The choice will NEVER BE CLEARER; a credit union along the
    model of LAFCU (notes 764.0, 764.1 & 764.62) or more of the same
    "relationship banking" and the elimination of "abusers".
    

    
    Re: .32
    
    > Sorry, but I don't see that.  It looks to me like you either agree with
    > him or you don't.  If you don't, tough.
    
    Sounds more like a litle projection going on here to me.
    
    Steve
    

Phil, Dave, and I are modifying our cafeteria lunch visit schedule
slightly.  We will be at the Mill today (March 10).

See you in the cafeteria at lunc time.

Chris