“There will be a special meeting,” Gabbert is quoted as saying. “We haven't decided on the date yet. We're still trying to gather information so we can fully inform our members of what they are voting on when we notify them of the special meeting.”

Gabbert's comments appeared almost as an afterthought since the CU had been signaling for two weeks that it took the prospect of a special meeting very seriously. Not only had the CU chartered a Web site, savedfcu.com, and been reprimanded for some of its comments on the site, it has also published billboards with similar messages and rented a large truck that it plastered with messages in favor of the board. The truck is being driven to areas where DFCU members live and work.

For example, the credit union held a party on Saturday, April 29 to support the board and to urge members to vote against the recall.

Large tents were set up outside a main CU branch during the affair in which the CU served food apparently to its own members as well as some of the public at large.

“It's really astonishing how much member money is being used on this effort,” said Margaret Blohm, an organizer of the DFCU Owners United group which originated and supports the recall. “I can't help but think that this will ultimately backfire on them because of the money spent.”

For its part, the DFCU Owners United group sent a May 1 letter to the CU suggesting some ground rules that could make for a more orderly and fair special meeting.

Among its suggestions, the group included holding the meeting at a hotel with enough space to welcome 1,000 participants; that the CU hire an independent parliamentarian to conduct the meeting, as well as a different independent inspector of ballots than the one it had before; that campaigning by either side not be allowed inside the facility where the meeting will be held; and that NCUA be asked to have a representative there.

“The NCUA representative should be prepared to clarify the reasons for regulatory restrictions on disclosure of information to members regarding charter conversions in the event this issue is raised,” the group said.

The group also suggested that both its personnel be allowed to observe the procedures the CU used to make sure members were eligible to vote and that the CU engage an independent court reporter or video operator to record the meeting's proceedings.

“We recommend that access to the meeting be limited to one entry,” the group wrote. “As members enter, an independent party should determine whether, in fact, the person is a member and is entitled to vote. To the extent that the credit union uses its own personnel for this function, we would request that a member of our organization be given an opportunity to observe this function.”

The credit union has not yet replied to the group or commented upon the meeting other than the comments published in the News.

Meanwhile, in other news related to the DFCU fight, the Michigan Credit Union League decided to ask NCUA to ban the use of raffles or lotteries in balloting over whether or not a credit union will convert to a mutual bank.

The league board voted to approve the policy against the use of such raffles at a meeting on April 26, 2006.

The league proposals, which league staff will advocate with regulators and lawmakers, included requiring credit unions to post conversion information on their Web sites and in their lobbies; requiring credit unions to disclose the cost of the conversion process in marketing, mailings and related expenses; and requiring a secret ballot and an independent agency to conduct and monitor conversion voting.

The league also urged both DFCU and the DFCU Owners United group to “conduct themselves in a legal, civil, responsible and fair manner in dealing with post-conversion special meetings and other activities” and “refrain from any statements that would cause safety and soundness concerns, create alarm for members or disparage the reputation of the credit union.”

[email protected]