Conference 7.286::dcu

    OK. I haven't seen any of this but I have received a second report
    of the activities as seen from DCU HQ. What follows is the story as
    it was told to me. I'm *not* about to debate what did happen - just
    report what I was told. I'll leave judgment about where the signs
    are and were to people who've seen them.

    There was/is a sign supporting three candidates outside DCU
    headquarters. It was not and is not on DCU property. The 3G sign
    was put up on DCU property and that's why it was taken down. When
    Chuck Cockburn was told about the sign being taken down he gave
    instructions for it to be put back up. But closer to the road and 
    off DCU property.

    			Alfred

    PS: For the record, I only write notes here that are ok to send to
    any DCU member or employee. Any note I write in any conference can
    be send to any Digital employee.

    Re .-1
    
    Does anybody know why the handyman was moving the original sign?
    
    Dave

    RE: .2 Not me. .0 was the first I heard about movement of the H/M/R
    sign.
    
    			Alfred

    Alfred, *who* told you the information in .1?  Is it the official DCU
    line?  Is it Chuck Cockburn's official statement on what happened?
    If it isn't, then who is taking responsibility for this statement?
    
    
    Two things about the story perplex me.  The first is that many signs
    for the incumbents' group (whatever you want to call them) have indeed
    appeared on DCU property, inside branches -- and now, I hear, Chuck even
    approves solicitation inside branch offices.  I don't understand what
    is different about this sign being on DCU property, if it was.  
    
    Second, I'm mystified how one can say with authority exactly where
    the DCU property ends.  If the signs were next to each other, then
    one would have to know to the foot exactly what the boundary is to
    know that one sign was on DCU property and the other wasn't.  Note
    that plot plans generally are *not* accurate to the foot.  It takes
    a survey to obtain that accuracy.  Measuring a setback from the road
    isn't good enough either, since the road isn't always in the middle
    of the twon's right-of-way.  I'm not saying that they couldn't have 
    known, I'm saying that it's quite surprizing that they'd know without
    doing a fair bit of research first.
    
    
    I'll commit to asking these questions of the person at the DCU who
    takes responsibility for the claim that Alfred reported, if I can
    find out who that is -- and if I'm allowed to report the answers I get.
    
    This year's election gets more mystifying every day!
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

    >    Alfred, *who* told you the information in .1?  

    Chuck Cockburn.

    		Alfred

    
    
       Hey, here's my version of the sign story
    
    
    
    SIDCU: (Somebody Important in DCU)
    
      	"Jetson, go outside and take down that 'inferior' candidate sign.
    	 I can't have any opposition to my meal-ticket"
    
    Jetson: "Yes sir, I'll do it right now."
    
           ..passage of time..
    
    Jetson: "Sir, I have that sign. What shall I do with it?"
    
    SIDCU:  "Dispose of it, in teensie weensie pieces, and spread the
    	     result equally across all 38 wastebaskets in the bldg."
    
    Jetson: "By the way sir, somebody was taking pictures"
    
    SIDCU:  "Jetson, put that sign back up, and blame it on position."
    
    

    
    Re: .0
    
    
    Are they pathetic or is it just me?  I guess I still can be amazed
    at how SMALL people can be.
    
    Steve
    

                                                198 Linden Street
                                                Boylston, MA 01505
                                                April 1, 1994
     Office of the President
     Digital Employee's FCU
     141 Parker Street, PK05
     P.O. Box 130
     Maynard MA 01754-0130

     Dear Chuck Cockburn,

          Dave Garrod recently reported an event in which two DCU election
     campaign signs, posted near the DCU headquarters, were moved.
     According to the report that he received, one of the signs was moved
     nearer to the driveway, and then the other sign (supporting the "3G"
     candidates) was removed completely, though it was later put back up.

          Alfred Thompson informed me that your explanation of this event
     was that the 3G sign was taken down because it was on DCU property,
     and that the other sign was not on DCU property.  Further, Alfred
     reported that your instructions on hearing about this were to repost
     the 3G sign, off DCU property.

          I applaud your action to allow both signs to be displayed, but I
     am perplexed about a couple of aspects of the story.  I would greatly
     appreciate further explanation.  I would also like your permission to
     electronically redistribute your reply, so that others who are curious
     about this event can see the answers in your own words.

          First, I'm curious about why "being on DCU property" was grounds
     for taking the sign down.  There have been many reports of partisan
     DCU election information being posted inside DCU branches, and also of
     their being distributed inside DCU headquarters.  How is it different
     to post a sign on the lawn than to place something inside the
     building?

          Second, I'm curious how it was so quickly determined that one
     sign was on DCU property and the other sign wasn't.  I'm told that it
     was removed before 8am on the morning that it was posted.  Since they
     were next to each other, it would take a very precise measurement to
     determine that one was on DCU property and one was not.  I know from
     my mortgage experience that plot plans are not accurate to the foot
     and that roads do not always run directly through the center of the
     town-owned right-of-way, so I would have thought that measurements
     from a survey mark would be required to know that one sign was on DCU
     property and the other wasn't.  Could you please explain how the DCU
     property boundary was determined so precisely?

          Finally, the action of moving the other sign prior to removing
     the 3G sign is totally unexplained.  If the other sign was off DCU
     property, why was it moved?  If it was on DCU property, why weren't
     both signs removed and taken inside?

          Thank you for your kind attention and thank you in advance for
     your answers to these questions.  Also, please accept my apologies if
     I have gotten any of the facts of this situation wrong.



                                                Sincerely,



                                                Larry Seiler

Chuck deserves credit in having the election sign put back up.

However, the whole situation stinks.

Collis

    
    Re .6: My interpretation exactly.
    

<<< Note 805.9 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "Live freed or live a slave to sin" >>>

>Chuck deserves credit in having the election sign put back up.

	It's possible that I'm just becoming too cynical, but I wonder
	how quickly the sign would have been restored had the photos of 
	the removal not been available? 

	>However, the whole situation stinks.

	On this we agree completely.
Jim

    
    re: .0 good reporting...
    
    re: all..
    
    I expected nothing but this. Think about it, what was the common
    denominator between 2 years ago elections and this election..? 
    
    Think about it..we used to blame it all on the board of directors, and
    the president just did what the board told him. WRONG! Chuck is the 
    common denominator. He was in control of the old board (from the minute 
    he was hired) and he wants to stay in control of this one.
    
    Oh ..just a side note. I went and opened up an account with IC credit
    union in preparation to close my accounts at DCU. (just in case sort of
    thing).
    
    Nisreen

    
    RE: .1
    
    Alfred, what time did you speak to Chuck Cockburn?  Was it before or
    after the posting of .0?
    
    RE: .4
    
>        Two things about the story perplex me.  The first is that many signs
>    for the incumbents' group (whatever you want to call them) have indeed
>    appeared on DCU property, inside branches -- and now, I hear, Chuck even
>    approves solicitation inside branch offices.  I don't understand what
>    is different about this sign being on DCU property, if it was.  
    
    Exactly.  
    
    RE: .6
    
    I can't stop laughing.  You win the note of the week award!
    
    RE: .8
    
    Good luck Larry.  But your request did not specify the business reason
    for wanting this information? ;-)    
    
    RE: .11
    
>	It's possible that I'm just becoming too cynical, but I wonder
>	how quickly the sign would have been restored had the photos of 
>	the removal not been available? 
    
    Good question.  
    
    RE: .12
    
    I LOT to think about!
    

    
>    Alfred, what time did you speak to Chuck Cockburn?  Was it before or
>    after the posting of .0?
    
    Well before .0 was posted. Chuck indicated that he expected the
    posting though. I wouldn't have said anything if .0 hadn't happened.
    I was asked to reply with Chuck's version if something showed up
    and since he has no write access that seemed a reasonable request.
    
    		Alfred

    Well, the pictures are spectacular.  "Flash"'s photos tell an
    amazing story.  These potentially award winning photographs, along 
    with a 5"x7" blowup of "somebody" carrying the sign across DCU's
    parking lot are available for viewing.  I wonder if the person
    carrying the sign across the DCU parking lot is a DCU employee?
    And if he is, could this be considered campaigning for the 3G
    ticket? ;-)
    
    I think I'll extract .6 and insert it next to the 5x7.  In another bit
    of ironic humor, the outside of the folder containing the picture has
    the words...
    
    
    
    
    				Special Moments
    
    
    
    

Geez, I leave town for two days for a little vacation and some high
performance driving down at Lime Rock Park, and all this happens.
I miss all the fun sometimes.

Ok, Big Question about all this:  Given all the strange events that
have happened in connection with this election (you know, all the
different interpretations of policy, DCU sending Digital security
after candidates, DCU employees soliciting on company property,
signs appearing and being moved around, branch managers demanding
to know whether we're on our "own time" or "Digital's time", etc.
etc.), I find myself wondering - WHAT IS IT ABOUT US THAT DCU
SO FEARS?

I mean, could it be that they fear guys with British accents?  Do
they fear guys with hard to spell last names?  Do they fear hypenated
last names, or maybe that I like Unix instead of VMS?  Nope, it 
couldn't be that; Dave likes VMS and they fear him too.  :-)  :-)

Seriously, what's to fear here?   An end to a ridiculous schedule of
fees, and a system of "relationships" that even DCU itself appears
to not understand is hardly a reason to take the risks DCU appears
to be taking in order to win.  

Ya gotta wonder....

Chris

Maybe the opposition favors a profit sharing plan for employees, Chris.
-Jack

PS. Where's the note about DCU sending DEC security after candidates? I
   musta missed that one.

    re .13:  I added a postscript to my written letter that said I was
    asking because I was concerned about the appearance of partisanship on 
    the part of the DCU, in case it wasn't obvious.  We'll see if that's 
    considered a valid business reason.
    
    re .17:  I don't recall any of the 3G candidates saying that they are
    opposed to there being a profit sharing plan.  I do recall a lot of
    notes, from various people, that questioned the criteria for this
    particular profit sharing plan.  It's a significant distinction,
    although I expect that the DCU employees only know part of the story.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

    This would make a great feature story with fotos for the next

		"DCU Special Report"

	-AJ

    
    Re pictures:
    
    When will the .GIFs be available?
    

Folks,

Chuck called me Tuesday afternoon, and I got back to him yesterday.
Here are my notes on what was said.

1)  Chuck arrived at 8am last Friday and was told that the 3G sign had been 
removed.  If I understood him properly, he said that he wasn't completely
clear at the time on why it was removed, but said that it should be put 
back anyway.  And of course it was put back.

2)  The determination of its being "on DCU property" was made on the 
assumption that the town has a 5' right-of-way from the street, and that
the 3G sign was obviously farther from the street than that.  I'd appreciate
a comment from those who posted it on whether it was significantly farther
from the street than the other sign.  

3)  Chuck said that although campaign material is allowed to be in the
DCU branches, no posters or signs are allowed.  By that rule the signs
outside are indeed disallowed on DCU property (assuming that they were), 
evem though campaign literature was on tables inside the branch.  

4)  Chuck also said that periodically people knocked down the other sign.
I found this comment both surprising and disturbing -- presumably Chuck
meant that people were deliberately knocking it down.  Were any of the 3G 
candidates or their supporters informed of this?  Can anyone provide 
confirmation that it was knocked down -- e.g. seeing it laying down, or not 
seeing it there after it first appeared?  

5)  Chuck noted that it's bad that the DCU employees are in the middle on
this election.  I certainly agreed with that!  Chuck said that the DCU
employees tend to get a lot of abuse during the year, due to the tensions
caused by DEC's layoffs.  I believe it.  As a result, Chuck said, they are
sensitive to the potential for getting abuse on election issues.  

6)  Chuck said that he hoped we could have specific rules in place for
next year to help avoid the problem of employees being caught in the middle.
I suggested that perhaps the Nominating Committee could draft a set of rules.
I also thought that we had at least some written rules this year.
    
7)  Finally, Chuck said that there have been continuing problems with
the signs, in that the 3G sign was so large that it blocked people's
sight lines while turning into the parking lot.  He said that both signs
were down for a time, but that he arranged with Phil to have both signs 
farther away from the turn, and agreed to let them be a little way onto DCU 
property (meaning more than 5' from the street) if necessary.


Well, this doesn't exactly answer all my concerns (e.g. why did a DCU
employee move the other sign), but I believe that Chuck told me all he knows 
on the subject of the signs, and I didn't want to quibble about details.

I would have loved to have asked about the cases of employees passing out
literature from behind the counter, in the context of wondering just *who*
it was who was responsible for putting employees in the middle on this
election.  However, I didn't feel that that was within the scope of what I
had contacted him about, and it's been asked before.  Hopefully we'll have
rules next year that do NOT allow passing out any kind of literature from
behind the counter.  

	Enjoy,
	Larry

PS -- In my view, ignoring the rule against DCU employees campaigning is 
what put them in the middle on this election.  It was the unknown parties
who distributed election materials to the DCU employees and asked them
to campaign who are the ones who put them in the middle.  If the DCU
employees were neutrals in the election, there wouldn't be tension 
between them and the other members (at least not about the election).  LS

�PS -- In my view, ignoring the rule against DCU employees campaigning is 
�what put them in the middle on this election.  It was the unknown parties
�who distributed election materials to the DCU employees and asked them
�to campaign who are the ones who put them in the middle.  If the DCU
�employees were neutrals in the election, there wouldn't be tension 
�between them and the other members (at least not about the election).  LS
    
    Who says they were put in the middle or that they are neutral?  If they
    are members they have the right to vote and support whomever they
    please.  Did someone hold a gun to their heads and ask them to
    distribute certain literature?
    
    Yes, care must be taken to make sure that an endorsement by anyone
    (Board member, Digital employee, DCU employee) is not construed as an
    endorsement of any other body.

>              <<< Note 805.23 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>
    
>    Yes, care must be taken to make sure that an endorsement by anyone
>    (Board member, Digital employee, DCU employee) is not construed as an
>    endorsement of any other body.
    
    This is the whole point of the Bylaw.
    
    Which brings us right back to the question you refuse to answer Keith. 
    Now I'll ask if you believe that care has been taken to avoid this
    misperception?
    
    Should you feel the urge, you can also answer the question below also.
    
    
================================================================================
Note 799.58        OK to distribute literature in DCU branches          58 of 62
ASE003::GRANSEWICZ "DCU Election: 3 G's -> NO FEES"  21 lines  31-MAR-1994 16:15
                         -< Can't make it any simpler >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Keith,
    
    DCU Bylaws state:
    
>      Article VI.
>
>       Section 9.  Subject to state and federal law and regulation,
>       present credit union employees (including the president/CEO)
>       shall not be eligible to serve on the nominating committee,
>       nor shall they take part, during normal credit union business
>       hours, in any credit union election or campaign actively at
>       any credit union location to which they have access solely by
>       reason of their credit union employment.

    A DCU member observes:
    
>    At MRO1 yesterday, DCU employees were handing it out from behind the
>    counter to DCU members that were at the tellers window doing business.
    
    After reading the DCU Bylaw above, in your opinion were the DCU Bylaws
    violated or were they not violated?
    

    >Who says they were put in the middle or that they are neutral?  If they
    >are members they have the right to vote and support whomever they
    >please.  Did someone hold a gun to their heads and ask them to
    >distribute certain literature?
    
    Well, it certainly appears that they are being placed in the middle,
    either by someone or their own actins which seem to deviate from what
    was defined policy ...  I stress seem because of the different
    interpretations that have been placed on those policies by various
    people over the last 3 elections.
    
    >Yes, care must be taken to make sure that an endorsement by anyone
    >(Board member, Digital employee, DCU employee) is not construed as an
    >endorsement of any other body.

    And that is exactly why there was supposedly a policy put in place
    which suggested that DCU employees could not campaign while at work ...
    and the interpretation of "at work" seems to be the problem.
    
    I'm going to make some assumptions ... but they seem to fit with some
    of what has happened, and fit with the behaviours of managers etc...
    (Please Kieth ... don't call me on these assumptions ... because I
    know they are and have stated them as such ... so what follow is
    IMHO ...)
    
    1) DCU management has recommended and thus campaigned within DCU
    employee ranks for the Relationship Banking Directors ... vis the
    Qualified Board ...
    
    2) DCU employees have not had the exposure to the 3Gs campaign in the same
    manner we have to understand the 3G position, where they have had more
    exposure to the Qualified Board candidates .... through the Committee
    flyer.
    
    Thus the 3Gs are the unknown enemy, and who knows if they have been
    painted even blacker than the Committee for a Qualified Board flyer
    has attempted to do by people withing DCU management.  We have no way
    of knowing this, unless we can find a "friendly" DCU employee.
    
    Stuart
    
    

>    Who says they were put in the middle ...
    
    Chuck did as per the phone conversation log a few notes back.
    
    -Glenn-
    

    
    Re:
    
>4)  Chuck also said that periodically people knocked down the other sign.
>I found this comment both surprising and disturbing -- presumably Chuck
>meant that people were deliberately knocking it down.  Were any of the 3G 
>candidates or their supporters informed of this?  Can anyone provide 
>confirmation that it was knocked down -- e.g. seeing it laying down, or not 
>seeing it there after it first appeared?  

    If indeed people have knocked down the other sign I find that
    reprehensible behaviour. My guess is that the wind blew it down, it is
    only a puny little sign.
    
Re:
    
>3)  Chuck said that although campaign material is allowed to be in the
>DCU branches, no posters or signs are allowed.  By that rule the signs
>outside are indeed disallowed on DCU property (assuming that they were), 
>evem though campaign literature was on tables inside the branch.  

    I wish Chuck would be consistent. When Phil, Chris and I met with him
    last Monday he told us that there SHOULDN'T be any campaign material
    available in the branches. He told us that we could campaign in the
    branches. Now he appears to be saying that campaign material is allowed
    in the branches. If that is the case all the branches will be receiving
    visits from 3G candidates and supporters to deposit 3G campaign
    material.
    
    All through this election we have tried to play EXACTLY by the rules.
    The problem is that they've been changed on us from moment to moment.
    
    The ONLY reason the 3G sign was put up outside DCU HQ was because there
    was a Ross/Milbury/Haskins sign there. We were not the first to put up
    a sign.
    
Re:
    
>5)  Chuck noted that it's bad that the DCU employees are in the middle on
>this election.  I certainly agreed with that!  Chuck said that the DCU
>employees tend to get a lot of abuse during the year, due to the tensions
>caused by DEC's layoffs.  I believe it.  As a result, Chuck said, they are
>sensitive to the potential for getting abuse on election issues.  

    Here I absolutely agree with Chuck. But in my view it is Chuck Cockburn
    that put his employees in the middle of this election. If he had told
    them from day one exactly what he bylaws were and that they were UNDER
    NO CIRCUMSTANCES to campaign for ANY candidates while in te branches
    during credit union hours they would not have been put in the middle of
    this.
    
    We only started campaigning in and around DCU branches is response to
    the blatant campaigning by DCU employees for the Ross/Milbury/Haskins
    ticket It didn't help things that what they were handing out was
    defamatory in nature to three of the candidates, myself included.
    
    re:
    
>6)  Chuck said that he hoped we could have specific rules in place for
>next year to help avoid the problem of employees being caught in the middle.
>I suggested that perhaps the Nominating Committee could draft a set of rules.
>I also thought that we had at least some written rules this year.
    
    As I said above this starts with the employees being told to say out of
    the election. Also from what one DCU employee said I think it is even
    possible that the M/R/H campaign literature was shipped from DCU HQ.
    I have no absolute proof of this. All I know is that Mary Madden was
    very aware that DCU employees werehanding out literature. She seemed to
    think it was OK if they were on break. And "break" for a branch manager
    was defined as any time they wanted becaise they are exempt employees.
    
    Dave

�    We only started campaigning in and around DCU branches is response to
�    the blatant campaigning by DCU employees for the Ross/Milbury/Haskins
�    ticket It didn't help things that what they were handing out was
�    defamatory in nature to three of the candidates, myself included.
    
    I recall the hubub of the Qualified Board flyers taking place after the
    3G whistle stop campaign being announced, and it certainly came about
    after alot of campaigning being done here and via electronic mail by
    members of the 3G party.
    
    Speaking of the "defamatory nature", any luck with pursuing your
    lawsuit?
    
    Phil, once again I am missing your point.  I don't know why you insist
    on beating this to death.  You are bringing up one incident that many
    (not me - I commented on ones which I didn't think conflicted with the
    bylaws, afterall there were plenty of opposing comments) have commented
    on.  Do you need me to answer to validate your position or something? 
    Perhaps if you actually answered one of my questions, I might be
    persuaded to answer one of your pointless ones.

>              <<< Note 805.28 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>

>    Phil, once again I am missing your point.
    
    The point is Keith that while you frequently question the actions,
    facts, and words of others, when presented with facts concerning parties
    which you appear to support, you refuse to give a clear answer to
    questions concerning their actions, facts and words.  Then when people
    say what they thought you meant, you very quickly accuse them of not
    reading your replies or reading things into them.
    
    I'm only asking of you the very same level of clarify and factualness
    that you are asking of everybody else.  Sorry if holding you to your
    own standards makes you uncomfortable.
    

�    The point is Keith that while you frequently question the actions,
�    facts, and words of others, when presented with facts concerning parties
�    which you appear to support, you refuse to give a clear answer to
�    questions concerning their actions, facts and words.  
    
    I do not recall questioning this incident.  I do recall questioning the
    interpretation of other incidents.  Please show me where I questioned
    this incident.

    
    Re: .31
    
    >  I do not recall questioning this incident.
    
    That is precisely the point of Phil's question.
    
    Steve
    

�    >  I do not recall questioning this incident.
�    
�    That is precisely the point of Phil's question.
    
    And your point is?
    
    Actually in order to make things a bit clearer I should have said I
    don't recall questioning the reporting/interpretion of this incident.

>�    >  I do not recall questioning this incident.
>�    
>�    That is precisely the point of Phil's question.
>    
>    And your point is?

    	That you don't get the point?
    
    -Glenn-

    
    Re: .34
    
    > That you don't get the point?
    
    Bingo.
    
    Steve
    

    You're right Steve and I've admitted as such many times.
    
    Maybe I do get the point.  Maybe Phil (and others) like to harass me
    -OR- Phil has some need for me to validate anything he says.

RE: Note 805.36 by PATE::MACNEAL

>    Maybe I do get the point.  Maybe Phil (and others) like to harass me
>    -OR- Phil has some need for me to validate anything he says.

I have noticed a trend where you are harassing people more often and
then claim they are harassing you...

Your actions speak louder than words...

	- mark

>              <<< Note 805.36 by PATE::MACNEAL "ruck `n' roll" >>>
>    Maybe I do get the point.  Maybe Phil (and others) like to harass me
>   -OR- Phil has some need for me to validate anything he says.


Keith,  I don't think Phil is trying to harass you.  I do think Phil tries to
help people understand his points. THIS IS FAR *SUPERIOUR* TO THOSE DIRECTORS
WHO POP IN WITH A REPLY, AND NEVER FOLLOW UP TO THE QUESTIONS.

I've thought you brought out a few good points.  But, I find myself next/unseen
when seeing notes or replies to the notes because the chain is going nowhere.
There doesn't seem to be any clarifications.
just my opinion,
ed

    At the risk of being accused of reading things into Keith's replies,
    I interpret .33 to mean that Keith doesn't disagree with various
    people's statements that it was inappropriate for DCU employees to
    hand out campaign literature from behind the counters.  Indeed, I've
    sometimes thought that if Keith *doesn't* question something, that
    means that he cannot see anything to question in it.
    
    I further assume that he is refusing to actually come right out and
    *say* this because he doesn't want to state opinions but only ask
    questions.  Furthermore I assume that he only wants to question the
    actions and positions of the 3G folks and those who have similar
    opinions.  I base that assumption on the fact that he does question
    them and has never (that I am aware of) questioned the actions or
    positions of Chuck or the rest of the Board, either in this forum
    or any other.  I'm not sure how Keith interprets this one-sided
    questioning as being "impartial", but that doesn't really matter.
    
    Finally, I assume that Keith often doesn't even care what the answer
    is to the questions that he asks.  I base this assumption on the 
    numerous occasions where Keith has been given the means to find 
    answers to his questions, but has refused to take the least action 
    to do so, instead insisting that it is someone else's obligation to
    find the answers and post them.  Whatever his reason for asking,
    apparently his reason is not because he wants to know the answer.
    
    Naturally, these assumptions could be wrong.  However, they are
    consistent with the evidence available to me.  I'd be happy to
    look at new evidence.  Assuming for the moment that I'm right,
    this suggests how the rest of us ought to respond to Keith:
    
    1)  There's no point in asking Keith for his opinion -- he seems
        to be saying quite clearly that he doesn't want to give it.
    
    2)  There's no point in asking Keith questions -- he has made it
        clear that he feels no need to answer questions that are asked him.
    
    3)  There's no point in getting mad at Keith for the noting style that
        he has chosen.  His general refusal to commit himself to anything
        is not a violation of policy, as much as it may annoy those of
        us who are willing to commit ourselves.
    
    4)  If you answer a question Keith raises and he disagrees with
        your answer, there's no point in replying unless you feel that 
        other people also didn't understand what you were saying.  Let 
        your original words (and Keith's reply) stand on their own.
    
    If the above suggested rules are followed, I think there'll be a lot
    fewer pointless digressions.  
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

�    I further assume that he is refusing to actually come right out and
�    *say* this because he doesn't want to state opinions but only ask
�    questions.  Furthermore I assume that he only wants to question the
�    actions and positions of the 3G folks and those who have similar
�    opinions.  I base that assumption on the fact that he does question
�    them and has never (that I am aware of) questioned the actions or
�    positions of Chuck or the rest of the Board, either in this forum
�    or any other.  I'm not sure how Keith interprets this one-sided
�    questioning as being "impartial", but that doesn't really matter.
 
    I hate to burst your bubble, Larry, but...
    
    There are many instances in here where I've questioned DCU policy.  3G
    supporters tend to overlook them.  
    
�    Finally, I assume that Keith often doesn't even care what the answer
�    is to the questions that he asks.  I base this assumption on the 
�    numerous occasions where Keith has been given the means to find 
�    answers to his questions, but has refused to take the least action 
�    to do so, instead insisting that it is someone else's obligation to
�    find the answers and post them.  Whatever his reason for asking,
�    apparently his reason is not because he wants to know the answer.
    
    Also, I have gotten my own answers and even posted them.  There have
    been instances where I have not pursued them outside of this
    conference.  In those instances I was being asked to substantiate
    claims made by others in this forum -- as the old saying goes, "Not my
    Job".  Like I said before, I think it only appropriate that if someone
    makes a claim they should be able to back it up.  It is not the
    responsibility of the one questioning the claim to back it up for them. 
    I find it interesting in light of the accusations of misinformation
    that certain parties were not willing to backup their claims.
    
�    Naturally, these assumptions could be wrong.  However, they are
�    consistent with the evidence available to me.  I'd be happy to
�    look at new evidence.  Assuming for the moment that I'm right,
�    this suggests how the rest of us ought to respond to Keith:
    
    I'm disapointed.  I didn't take you as the type to jump to conclusions
    using incomplete data, or to ignore data.
    
    Enjoy

    The weirdest thing happens when I reply to this conference.  My phone
    rings and when I pick up, the other party hangs up.

RE: Note 805.41 by PATE::MACNEAL

>    The weirdest thing happens when I reply to this conference.  My phone
>    rings and when I pick up, the other party hangs up.

At least Chuck is calling you... :-)

	- mark

    I happened to be in PKO on Wed and Thu. On Wed I only saw the 3G sign,
    but on Thu saw both. I did not look to see whether the smaller sign had
    been laying on the lawn. I do think the size of the size and the
    anchoring of the signs may cause the smaller sign to fall over. However
    whatever happened, I'm glad to see some people are interested in
    getting involved. Too much of the political process is ignored by
    people and they get what they deserve if they are un-involved. The 3Gs
    want to be involved to stop fee$ (love that on the sign) and the other
    want the status quo. I just hope that the voting membership read the
    enclosed brochures, think about what they want from a credit union, and
    VOTE accordingly. 

    re .40:
    
>    There are many instances in here where I've questioned DCU policy.  3G
>    supporters tend to overlook them.  
 
    Many?  Yeah, I must have not noticed -- and I did say that I was
    basing this on the evidence I'd seen and I'd gladly look at other 
    evidence.  I do notice that you are not arguing with the first 
    sentence of that paragraph, which was the important point anyway.
       
>    Also, I have gotten my own answers and even posted them.  
    
    Now, did I say that you *never* cared about the answers?  There are
    lots of places where you have asked detailed questions and refused
    to try to find the answers.  I never said you had no justifications
    for doing that -- just that you do it.  And you are agreeing.
    
>    I'm disapointed.  I didn't take you as the type to jump to conclusions
>    using incomplete data, or to ignore data.
    
    Actually, I think that your reply substantiated much of what I said.
    However, the point of my reply was a proposed set of guidelines for 
    those who reply to you, and if I write any more, I'll be violating
    my own guidelines.  If you don't want people to follow those
    guidelines, then by all means say so.  If you have more data, post
    it here and I'll read it.  I don't guarantee to see it elsewhere.
    
    		Enjoy,
    		Larry

    
    Well, the saga of the sign continues...
    
    It was put up yesterday at lunch.  By 4:50pm yesterday it was
    down/missing.  I have reported it stolen to Digital Security as well
    as the Maynard Police Dept.
    
    DCU and/or its employees removed it twice before without notifying
    anybody they had done so.  If this sign is found in DCU's possession
    once again, there will be action taken.  Quite frankly, this BS has got
    to stop.  
    

	Is that the famous sign standing in the bed of a blue pickup in the
MK2 parking lot this afternoon?

							--Doug

    
    	Yes, the sign lives!!!  Still "silent but proud"...
    
    	Having heard nothing from Digital or Maynard authorities yesterday,
	I went by DCU HQ last night and found our sign laying down by
	some trees.  It had been defaced on one side with orange spray paint.
	I knocked on the door of the house in front of DCU.  A nice old
	lady answered the door and we had a long conversation.  She said
	she did see somebody spray painting the sign on the ground
	(20-25' from her house) on Wed. afternoon. She didn't see exactly
	what he looked like.  She said he did walk back towards DCU after
	spray painting the sign.

    
    How about we put the sign back up and rent her a video camera?
    

    Re: Sign sighting in MKO...

    Hmmmm... I thought I saw it in the back of a pick-up truck in TAY
    LATE this afternoon ??? 

    Maybe if this sign keeps moving... it can stay one step ahead of
    the vandals that are bent on hiding and defacing it!

    Charly

    P.S. Where can we get the "1994 Sign Tour Tee Shirts"

RE: Note 805.47 by ASE003::GRANSEWICZ
    
>	lady answered the door and we had a long conversation.  She said
>	she did see somebody spray painting the sign on the ground
>	(20-25' from her house) on Wed. afternoon. She didn't see exactly
>	what he looked like.  She said he did walk back towards DCU after
>	spray painting the sign.

Did she say if this person had a T-shirt on with something about Mangone? :-)

	-mark

    
    Well, it became obvious our "silent but proud" sign was ill-prepared to
    fend off vandals, thieves and hooligans.  So a reassesment of the
    situation was ordered and the appropriate engineering ECOs issued.  The
    result was a new version of the sign.  It now stands on an A-frame with
    four legs that are firmly set in buckets containing approximately
    240 lbs of cement.  We have named our new and improved sign...
    
    
    
    Bigfoot.
    
    We left the act of vandalism (orange spray paint) on the sign to show
    all the childish ends to which some will go to stop communication.
    

    Hey Phil - don't forget that you are going to have to move the
    thing after the election's over!
    

    
    RE: .52
    
    Don't worry Steve, I've already booked the crane... 8-)
    
    But don't mistake Bigfoot for a large immobile sign.  Our crack
    engineering team has planned ahead.  Simply mount casters and Bigfoot
    can run with the best of them.  Watch your local TV station's coverage
    of the Boston marathon.  It is a heavy favorite (groan) to place first
    in the Sign Division... 8-)
    
    
    
    Gotta keep a sense of humor about this stuff....
    

    I went by DCU HQ (to use the branch) and looked for the signs.
    I didn't see any. Where'd they go? I was really looking  forward
    to seeing a part of DCU history. 
    
    			Alfred