Conference 7.286::dcu

    
    Yeah... looks like Lois Haskins has you whiners pegged :-)
    
    
    Our ballots were waiting on the counter yesterday; checked, signed and
    in the mail last night.
    

    
    Well, one thing is for sure, Lois Haskins is more of the same.  Conform
    to DCU's model or stop your whining.  Want bonus dividends or interest
    rebates?  Stop your whining.  Want a real credit union that values each
    and every member the same?  Stop your whining.  And the beat goes on...
    

    Nice that I received my ballot yesterday, only one problem,
    no return envelope...
    
    Could someone post the address of where I should send my ballot.
    
    Regards,

    :^)  Are you guys *really* as young and good looking as that?  Why, if
    your PR with the DCU mgmt. is to be believed, I half expected extra
    long eye teeth to be protruding and an advanced degree of hirsutism to
    be manifested... :^)
    
    Um, I have a question, my son-and-heir also got a ballot, but, if I
    were being real honest, I would admit that he is not yet quite 17 years
    of age (next month)...  and can he legally "vote"?
    
    My ballot will be marked in indelible ink, tonight, and posted in the
    morning.
    
    Why does all of this give me a nasty sense of dej� vu?
    
    /mms

>    Nice that I received my ballot yesterday, only one problem,
>    no return envelope...
>    Could someone post the address of where I should send my ballot.

    WARNING - Before you send in that ballot (in your own evelope)

    I THOUGHT the instructions said something about, you HAD to use
    the enclosed return envelope and that ballots received in other
    envelopes would NOT be accepted and counted!!

    Charly

    
    .6 is CORRECT.
    
    I just got off the phone with Pay Coyle, DCU Election Coordinator and
    she says that any ballots returned in envelopes other than the official
    envelops, WILL BE INVALID.
    
    Anybody who receives a ballot and no envelope should call Pat and she
    will send you an envelope.  Her number is DTN 223-6735 x180.  If her
    answering machine picks up, please leave a message with your full name,
    home address, account number and a number where you can be reached.
    
    

    Who is Lois Haskins?

re:  .8

Check ELF.

    I'm .5, and I have a question in there that really would love an
    answer?
    
    Thanks...
    
    /mms

    Common Name:   LOIS HASKINS
    Search Surname:  HASKINS  Search Given Name:  LOIS,  LOIS GRAHAM,  LOIS
    DTN:  297-6705,  223-0694,  493-0694  Intrnl Mail Addr:  MRO4-3/H20
    Location:  MLO3-2/10B  Node:  ASABET  Username:  HASKINS
    Org Unit:  CONTROLLER,  CORP CONTROLLERS HEADQUARTERS
    Position:  INVESTMENT PLANNING AND ANALYSIS
      

    Lois Haskins is a candidate by petition. She did not go through
    the nominating process. Not that that matters. Her ELF entry 
    follows. Other then having attended one meeting with her I
    don't know much about her. I expect to learn more when my ballot
    arrives.

    			Alfred
    
              Name:  LOIS HASKINS
               DTN:  297-6705, 223-0694, 493-0694
    DECnet address:  ASABET::HASKINS
Internal Mail Addr:  MRO4-3/H20
          Location:  MLO3-2/10B
          Org Unit:  CONTROLLER, CORP CONTROLLERS HEADQUARTERS
          Position:  INVESTMENT PLANNING AND ANALYSIS
  

    
    Re:
    
>    :^)  Are you guys *really* as young and good looking as that?  Why, if
>    your PR with the DCU mgmt. is to be believed, I half expected extra
>    long eye teeth to be protruding and an advanced degree of hirsutism to
>    be manifested... :^)
 
    I guess I look younger than I really am.
       
>    Um, I have a question, my son-and-heir also got a ballot, but, if I
>    were being real honest, I would admit that he is not yet quite 17 years
>    of age (next month)...  and can he legally "vote"?
 
    I'm pretty sure the cutoff age is 16. Basically if a ballot has been
    mailed to someone then it should be OK to return it. When I next speak
    to Pat Coyle (DCU Election Coordinator; I have a call into her right
    now on another subject) I'll ask her for a definitive answer.
    
    Dave

    
    >    :^)  Are you guys *really* as young and good looking as that?  Why, if

    Having met all of them I can answer that once my ballot arrives. Except
    for one candidate who I've only met over the phone. He's an incumbent
    so perhaps one of the current board members can answer about him. :-)

    >    Why does all of this give me a nasty sense of dej� vu?

    I don't know. Were you around for the election 2 years ago? :-)

    >Um, I have a question, my son-and-heir also got a ballot, but, if I
    >were being real honest, I would admit that he is not yet quite 17 years
    >of age (next month)...  and can he legally "vote"?

    I'm not sure but I have a call into the DCU to find out. I'll get
    back to you.

    			Alfred

    
    Re .5:
    
    The election package states that any member over 16 (ie, 17 or older)
    can vote.
    
    It also has (on the ballot ieself, I believe) a deadline to return
    votes (22-Apr?)
    
    If your heir's birthday is on or before the ballot deadline, I would
    judge it morally correct to send in that ballot.
    

    
>    The election package states that any member over 16 (ie, 17 or older)
>    can vote.
    
    Isn't one "over 16" once they've had their 16th birthday?
    
    			Alfred

  >Isn't one "over 16" once they've had their 16th birthday?

Indeed one is.  Ever ask a kid how old they are and get
back an answer like "5 and 1/4"?

Collis

        OK, I checked with the DCU. Once you've turned 16 you can vote.
    Assuming there is $5 in your account of course. Also the program
    that generates the mailing does check for eligibility (age, etc)
    so if you get a ballot you can assume it's valid. If you think
    you should get a ballot and don't call DCU and check into it. But
    wait a few days yet. This stuff goes out bulk rate and can take a
    couple of days.

    			Alfred

    Thanks all for answering my question regarding my son's eligibility to
    vote, you're the greatest!  :^)  Naturally, Olde Mom, here, will advise
    said dependent as to the candidates he should choose, should he value
    his life...  :^)  Gee, does that constitute harassing a voter, I
    wonder?  Will the Election Police come and get me?
    
    Yes, I was "around" two years ago, and quite in the thick of things,
    thank you very much!  Hence my uneasy sense of dej� vu.  Kinsey was
    around then, and keeping things quite lively...  :^)
    
    My, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
    
    /mms

    
    Ran into a neighbor last night, and garnered two more votes for a
    rational board.
    
    In trying to help him keep the names straight until he got home, I
    arrived at the mamory aid mentioned elsewhere in this conference:
    
    (with apologies to Mr. Fillmore-Gillett)
    
    
    			Remember: Three G's
    

    
    I kind of like 
    
    			3G's -> No fees

Has the mailing been completed?  Neither I nor my son got a ballot yet (we're 
in New York).  When should I call the appropriate party?

Bob

    I haven't gotten my ballot yet either. If I don't get it this week
    end I'll be calling on Monday.
    
    		Alfred

    
    
    I just got mine yesterday... I seem to recall in a past mailing they
    mail these things in 2 or 3 "batches", so I would think that by this
    time they should all be in the mail...
    
    
    John
    

I got mine yesterday, I went home at lunch time to get the mail. There it was
sitting on the kitchen table. I am in St. Louis, Mo. 

Filled it out and mailed it, went directly to the post office.

3 G's --> == put the DCU back in the hands of the owners.  == better rates
and more satisfied customers.  You have all of my support.

Thanks for putting up with all of the you know what.

Success.

Dave

    re: .20  Seems to me you should be apologizing to Debbie.
    
    Mark

    
    In her 1992 candidate's statement, Ms. Ross said:
    
      "I will renew member confidence in the Board's integrity and
      cooperation by ensuring open communication od the DCU's Charter and
      Strategy including policy-setting proposals, modifications of product
      offerings..."
    
    In her 1994 candidate's statement, Ms. Ross says:
    
      "PROGRESS TO DATE...Provided open communication by making available
       Board meeting minutes and in-depth Board Memos..."
    
    This is the same Ms. Ross who stated in the BoD minutes of
    30-June-1992 (in response to Mr. Kinzelman's request to record
    individual votes on the minutes) that "the Board minutes do not reflect
    all of the discussions that occur on every issue", who "requested
    that individual Board member names, indicating how each Board member
    voted, not be listed", and who subsequently voted against the motion
    to record individual votes. (The motion carried. Incidently, Ms. Ross
    also voted for a motion to exclude the BoD minutes of 29-May-1992 from
    this recording of individual votes, after "it was noted that the Board
    of Directors were not aware at the May 29, 1992 that their names were
    being recorded as to how each member voted," Would they have voted
    differently if they thought someone was watching?)
    
    This is the same Ms. Ross who, after the Pricing Recommendations that
    implemented Relationship Banking were approved over the opposition of
    Mr. Gransewicz and Mr. Kinzelman on 27-Apr-1993, "noted that this decision
    must be kept confidential and this portion of the minutes be redacted until
    ...July, 1993." (A motion to redact the minutes was successful, and the
    unredacted minutes were not available until 22-Sep-1993, five months
    after the decision.)
    
    This is the same Ms. Ross who, in the 24-Aug-1993 meeting, voted in
    favor of a motion "that future minutes are to reflect only action and
    voting results" and, by implication, exclude discussions (motion
    failed), and subsequently voted in favor of a motion that "future
    minutes are to clearly state actions and votes, but disagreements and
    comments will be limited to one or two sentences" (motion carried).
    (Interestingly enough, Ms. Ross inserted the first recorded "dissenting
    opinion" in the minutes of 30-Jun-1992; apparently this practice fell
    out of her favor after Mr. Gransewicz employed it in several subsequent
    meetings.)
    

    I think .27 sums it up very well Wild Bill :-)
    
    

    
    Somebody mentioned that they thought the Board had approved the DCU
    employee gainsharing plan.  That is not the case.  The applicable
    sections of the Board minutes follow.
    
    What was voted was a "consensus" that DCU management could implement
    this plan because it was viewed by the Human Resources Comm. (Lisa
    Ross, Paul Milbury, Tom McEachin) as "compensation".
    
    And then since it was compensation, it was attempted that the entire
    discussion and plan be redacted.  This was primarily the stance of
    Lisa Ross and Chuck Cockburn.  What you see in the minutes the following
    month reflects the effort to make the plan it public by some Directors,
    and an effort to redact it all by others.  The result is that the
    discussion of the issue is redacted yet I do not believe it contains
    confidential information.  What it does contain are comments by some
    people that they might find very difficult to explain.  Thus the
    subsequent motions to record only votes and actions in the Board
    minutes.
    
    I would ask everybody to take note of Lisa Ross's and Paul Milbury's
    votes.
    
    
    
    
   Board of Directors' Meeting
   July 27, 1993
    
   GENERAL SESSION
    
   Ms. Ross asked for a consensus for Mr. Cockburn to proceed with the
   implementation of the Employee Gainsharing Plan.  (5 in favor: Mr.
   McEachin, Ms. Dawkins, Ms. Mann, Mr. Milbury and Ms. Ross;  2 opposed:  Mr.
   Gransewicz and Mr. Kinzelman)  CONSENSUS GRANTED.
    
    
   c.  Human Resource Committee
    
   Gainsharing (continued)
    
   Ms. Ross noted that, during the break, there seemed to be some questions
   regarding the consensus vote for DCU's Gainsharing Plan.  She recommended
   that a motion be made stating that Gainsharing is considered a compensation
   issue and is therefore under the CEO's authority to implement such a plan.
    
    
   *  It was moved by Ms. Dawkins and seconded by Ms. Mann to recognize that
   Gainsharing is considered a compensation issue and is therefore under the
   CEO's authority to implement such a plan.  (Six in favor:  Mr. McEachin,
   Ms. Dawkins, Mr. Kinzelman, Mr. Milbury and Ms. Ross;  and one opposed:
   Mr. Gransewicz.)  MOTION CARRIED.
    

   Board of Directors' Meeting
   August 24, 1993
    
   GENERAL SESSION
    
   IX.      REVIEW OF MINUTES
    
   the July 8, 1993, and July 27, 1993, Board meeting minutes.  The
   explanation of gainsharing and the vote taken for its implementation will
   be included in General Session, but all discussion will be included in
   Executive Session to be redacted when distributed to the membership.  (Six
   in favor:  Ms. Dawkins, Mr. Kinzelman, Mr. Milbury, Ms. Mann, Mr. McEachin,
   Ms. Ross;  One opposed:  Mr. Gransewicz)   MOTION CARRIED.
    
   *  It was moved by Mr. Milbury and seconded by Mr. McEachin that future
   minutes are to reflect only action and voting results.  (Three in Favor:
   Ms. Mann, Mr. Milbury and Ms. Ross;  Three Opposed:  Ms. Dawkins, 
   Mr. Gransewicz and Mr. Kinzelman;  One Abstention:  Mr. McEachin)  MOTION
   FAILED.
    
   *  It was moved by Ms. Dawkins and seconded by Mr. McEachin that future
   minutes are to clearly state actions and votes, but disagreements and
   comments will be limited to one or two sentences.  (Five in Favor:  
   Ms. Dawkins, Ms. Mann, Mr. Milbury, Mr. McEachin and Ms. Ross;  Two
   Opposed:  Mr. Kinzelman and Mr. Gransewicz)  MOTION CARRIED.
    

    
    RE: .27
    
>    In her 1994 candidate's statement, Ms. Ross says:
>    
>      "PROGRESS TO DATE...Provided open communication by making available
>       Board meeting minutes and in-depth Board Memos..."
    
    Read this VERY carefully.  I interpret this as saying that simply
    making Board meeting minutes AVAILABLE is Lisa Ross's commitment to
    open communication.
    
    Of course, unless you actually read the minutes and votes (or Bill's
    notes!) do you know that Lisa has actually voted to reduce the
    content of the Board minutes.
    

    I'm still waiting for my ballot.  Anyone else in my boat or should I
    start escalating?
    
    -- Russ in Maryland

    Re .-1
    
    I'd call DCU HQ and ask for aniother one. When I've been campaigning
    several people have told me that they haven't received a ballot.
    Correct procedure is to call DCU HQ at 1-800-DCU-TRYS and if the info
    center can't help you ask for Pat Coyle at extension #180.
    
    Dave

re: .31

>    I'm still waiting for my ballot.  Anyone else in my boat or should I
>    start escalating?
>    
>    -- Russ in Maryland

I'm also in Maryland and haven't received mine yet (although todays
mail hasn't come yet).  I've also been wondering when to escalate.

-Hal

From MD, have had mine for over a week now.

Mark, @ COP

Mine just arrived in this morning's mail.  You might want to just sit
tight for a few days.

-Hal

    
    
    I haven't received mine either. Figured I'd give it 'till Monday, then
    call.
    
    Marleen (mostly read-only)

    
    Two weeks and people are just receiving ballots in Maryland?  Guess
    that explains why Paul K. sent me mail saying he hadn't received his
    yet (West coast).  Can somebody that has not yet sent the ballot in
    please ask the post office what the return postage is on the envelop? 
    Anybody out there know how to tell?  If it is again third class postage, 
    will people be able to return the ballots by the deadline?
    

    
    It was pre-stamped with a "no postage needed if mailed in the US"
    so I _think_ it would go 1st class.
    
    I even used a return address sticker in case it got lost
    in the mail.  ;-))
    
    Tom
    

Return envelope:

Business Reply Mail, First Class Mail, Permit No. 56, Hingham, Ma.

    
    Re .39:
    
    Thanks!
    
    So, why haven't you sent it in yet? :-)
    

    
>>    So, why haven't you sent it in yet? :-)
  
My son got his in college and I wanted to make sure I could guide hin thru the 
process of completing it.  I went out today.  More :')'s 

    
    Well, this is good news.  It does bother me that we can't even take the
    smallest thing for granted.
    

    
    addendum to .27:
    
    ---------------------
    
    This is the same Ms. Ross who, in the board meeting of 22-Feb-1994,
    "indicated that Mr. Gransewicz's release of misinformation in the form
    of partial discussion and/or votes with no discussion is misleading to
    the members and cannot continue", and voted in favor of a motion "that
    all discussion from this meeting, in its entirety, is confidential until
    the minutes are approved and released" (motion carried). NOTE WELL the
    following contradiction:
    
      - Ms. Ross, on 24-Aug-1993, supported the motion "that future minutes
        are to reflect only action and voting results" and, by implication,
        exclude discussions (motion failed); Ms. Ross also supported a
        motion on that same date that "future minutes are to clearly state
        actions and votes, but disagreements and comments will be limited to
        one or two sentences" (motion carried); thus, Ms. Ross clearly
        established herself as supporting the recording of only partial (or
        no) discussion in the Bod Minutes.
    
      - Ms. Ross, on 22-Feb-1994, equated the concept of "partial discussion
        and/or votes with no discussion" with the term "misinformation",
        and said further that such "misinformation...is misleading to the
        members and cannot continue".
    
    It would seem that Ms. Ross has said "NO" to alleged "minsinformation"
    from the mouth of Mr. Gransewicz, but "(yes)" to "misinformation" in
    the published minutes.