If he knew the yearly tax returns weren't filed, wouldn't this raise HUGE
red flags? Wouldn't it be logical, for the ED to ask some further questions
and see what else hadn't been done as required?

Mike Schumann

"Charlie Lite" wrote in message
oups.com...
Alice
alice wrote:
Frank Reid wrote:
I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
motivation was.

Now Frank, if you claim to know something without any evidence to back
it up, some people might call that speculating.I was not just refering
to you here, but alot of the people who have posted on RAS.You did
claim that the motivation for ignoring the bylaws was stupidity.That
sounds like speculating to me.


I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
members and to the entire current excom.
Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
decision of any kind about an audit.

You have to read the post from 5BG on this one.

Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.

This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?

First of all, I can accept the fact that a mistake was made. The fact
that it was made three years in a row is a bit of a stretch.I dont
believe in a conspiracy (Yea, I know, now I am SPECULATING that there
was no conspiracy (grin)), but I would like to know why Dennis Wright
knew his CFO was not abiding by the law and chose not to do anything
about it for 3 years.


As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
this in as "smoke"?

Now work with me here Frank, it took alot of people to dig this
hole.Arent you the least bit curiuos why the checks and balances that
were put into place after the last fiasco didnt work here?3 years in a
row?

With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.

With comments like "Nothing more nothing less", you are just expressing
your opinion as I have been expressing mine.Isnt that what part of what
this board is for?For some reason you like to call your opinions
facts.Now I realize the people on the board are hard working buddies of
yours, and this might raise strong feelings for you when their
accountability is called into question, but all you have given us is
your OPINION of why they did not see fit to follow the bylaws.


Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
speculating just a little on your own?

OK Frank, lets get wrapped up in semantics here.The bylaws were not
followed!!!The people who were elected and trusted to follow them
didnt!!!Where is the speculation in that statement?

Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
without absolute proof of your acccusations.

Regards,

Frank Reid

Are you threatening me?What are you gonna do, fly to Salt Lake and kick
my ass?I always thought this board was for the free exchange of
questions and ideasand opinions, but then there are posters like you,
who post nothing but facts while the rest of us are just
speculating.And then you have to end your post with a physical
threat.Dude, did you get your meds today?

Alice

As Board Member I'd like to point out that none of the communications
from the EXCOM have indicated that the ED was aware of the unpaid
taxes. He was aware of the unfiled yearly tax returns but as I
understand it, he had no idea that the witholding
taxes collected from employees had not been fowarded to the appropriate
state or federal authorities.

Charlie "Lite"