Vaughn wrote "I think the board honestly
felt at the time that skipping the audits was a reasonable risk, and now the
assumption is that they realize that they were wrong."

There are several points this statement brings up;
1. The board had no RIGHT under the bylaws to take that "reasonable risk" . They did it KNOWINGLY.
there was nothing HONEST about the decision. they knowingly chose to ignore the charter that they were elected to uphold as that is the board function.
2. A PIC of an aircraft may HONESTLY feel that he can ignore FARS when they don't suit his immediate needs and HONESTLY believe that he is not placing himself or his passangers in harms way. But in so doing he is exposing himself to legal as well as financial jeprody should something unexpected go wrong. We, as pilots do not have the option of rewriting or disregarding regulations at our pleasure. Neither did the board.
3. Acting as an unpaid volunteer does NOT give anyone a free pass when harm is done as the result of taking a "reasonable risk" that was in fact in direct violation of bylaws or an FAR.
This whole discussion brings up the need to reorganize the structure of the ssa. Having a large board of volunteers scattered all over the country essentially sets up the situation whereby the executive board makes the decisions and presents information to the rest for approval. So now we have a large group of board members who screwed up by not questioning the core board..

how about reducing the number of board members to 3 or maybe 4 and holding their feet to the fire with annual elections. How about the regional directors being reclassified as regional advisors whose purpose in life is to advise the board of broad policy interests of their region. The current situation makes it clear that a large board of volunteers has a difficult time dealing with the nitty gritty of administrative matters.
5bg


"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message ...

"Jim Vincent" wrote in message
. ..
It seems to me from the latest letter that most of the effort is on focusing
the blame on the CFAO instead of the BoD. IMO, the core fault is on the Board
for not implementing the audits they were required to do, as quoted here from
a letter:

"There but by the grace of God, go I." Had I been on the BoD, given the
same information, knowledge and assumptions as the others on the board, and not
armed with the "rear view vision" that the group here at ras now is blessed
with, I might well have voted right along with them. I think the board honestly
felt at the time that skipping the audits was a reasonable risk, and now the
assumption is that they realize that they were wrong.

I thank the board for their service and hope they can get us out of this
mess.

I also respectfully look forward to a rational explanation of why our
professional ED was not on top of this a year ago. I have not yet heard even
the beginnings of one.

Vaughn