Frank Reid wrote:
There is still some confusion on the subject of the
audit, or lack thereof, and the board. The answer
given by the Excom to the members in their first statement
was not correct. Then the attempted clarification was also not clear.
So let me state it very clearly for all.

Frank, here we go again.There has been endless speculation on R.A.S.
about what the EXCOM did and what their motivation was, criminal
intent, etc. etc..How do you know exactly what the boards motivation
was?


The SSA Board of Directors never, I repeat never, discussed
the issue of 'not doing an audit'. The SSA Board of
Directors never, I repeat never, decided (or voted
on the option) of 'not doing an audit'. I hope that
is clear for all.

Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.If you
look at the Excom update dated 9-7-06 you cant help but notice that the
ED was well aware of the fact that payroll taxes had not been paid for
3 years.Tell us Frank, what was his motivation?
I have been communicating with my regional director who has informed me
that he is assembling a committee (The members of which have not been
involved with the SSA during the past two scandals) to investigate what
happened.With all due respect Frank, you might want to save your
speculation until this committee's investigation is complete.

So what happened? The Board simply did not think about
nor discuss an audit after 2003. Stupid? Yes! Deliberately
breaking the by-laws? No! Thus, the statement from
the excom concerning 'omission versus comission'.

More speculation here.Lets wait until the investigation is complete.

Does the above excuse the Board's lack of oversight
in not assuring that the by-laws were being followed
i.e. that an audit was taking place every year. No.
But it was an oversight by the Board. Nothing more,
nothing less.

"The hatch just blew"

Those are the facts.

Frank Reid