Those who haven't repressed the memories of last year's SSA financial
scandal may recall I was somewhat outspoken at the time. I was pleased
that the SSA Board ultimately created entities to monitor their and
the ExComm's actions and to recommend changes for the future. I wasn't
happy that it took so much pushing and shoving to get these entities
chartered--some directors didn't seem to "get it" regarding what the
real issues were. But I was just as unhappy at the unseemly behavior
of some SSA members and other critics on this forum who either
couldn't or didn't want to understand. But in the end, the process
worked and I think we're on the right course.

Will this debacle and subsequent turnaround mark the beginning of a
dynamic resurgence in U.S. soaring and the SSA's fortunes? Probably
not. We're a tiny, expensive, difficult-to-learn, time-intensive,
weather-dependent, fundamentally individual sport in a highly
regulated environment at a time when most Americans have less
available time and myriad other ways to spend it, preferably with
their families. But thanks to the efforts of a few volunteers and SSA
staff, our interests are fairly well served. Having spent almost a
decade on the SSA Board (part of that time on the ExComm) before the
recent scandals, I'm well aware of (a) the difficulty of getting
anyone to serve at all, and (b) ensuring that at least some of those
who do serve possess the right skill sets for critical Board-level and
staff positions.

In a perfect world, I'd make a few changes to the current structure
and staffing. But in the real world, if (as is my impression also) the
majority of SSA members wish the majority of our leadership to at
least effect a smooth transition if not continue in place, then I'm
all for it. If skilled, dedicated candidates with time, patience, and
funding (the latter either from their own resources or their regions')
wish to run for election to the Board, I doubt seriously if they will
have any difficulty winning. Prior to that, they can approach the
Board for consideration as a director at large (a position I once
opposed but learned was absolutely necessary to bring needed talent
into the Board). I'm sure there are directors who, for all of their
"I'd love to give up this job and let someone else do it" will fight
tenaciously to retain the privilidge of spending their own time and
money to attend boring meetings and listen to themselves pontificate.
I suspect more would, as is the case with Dianne Black-Nixon, like
nothing better than to retire but feel a true obligation to finish the
work they started.

It's very easy to be absolute: "they promised to resign so they must."
It's much more difficult to assess the situation rationally a year
later and determine what is the right decision considering all that
has transpired since then. A year ago I wanted a clean break, too. But
at this point, I can wait for the evolution to continue.

Chip Bearden