Could Be Worse - SSA

If you think the board is a bunch of nincompoops, here's another
suggestion from the SSA website: "SSA Regional Directors, Call for
Nominations. This is the offical call for nominations for the upcoming
election of your SSA Directors representing Regions 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11 and 12." Step up and do it right. It's likely that there will be
many more opportunities to serve on the board in the near future, given
how fun it is for the current occupants. r.a.s. critics ought to be
prime targets...I mean candidates.. to stand for election. Too bad
your email is anonymous so we can't nominate you right away.

John,
For your info the nomination window closed a few months ago.I think
that if members knew the SSA was short of help there would be alot more
volunteers (Myself included).

Let's not forget this board is a group of dedicated volunteers, elected
by us, the members. It's not some secret society.

This one made me laugh because of all the name calling that took place
on RAS a week ago because some member made the letter public.Almost
made it seem like it was a secret society.What I cant understand is why
all the name calling came from the people who support the current
management.
Also, is the ED not a paid position?



John Cochrane BB

Jay wrote:
Hear, hear John. Personally I think you folks are doing an exemplary
job in some pretty ugly circumstances. Speaking for myself - thank you
all.

For those others on r.a.s. (are you listening/reading 5-BG?) endless
speculation on something you know nothing about is pointless and
counterproductive. Questions as to why the ED is still there and the
CFO is not, whether the accounting firms insurance should pay or who
should hang are all based on your speculation and not on any facts
whatsoever. The boards decisions to date have been based on what they
knew then or know now. Facts, not supposition. If they have not yet
chosen (or for that matter, never choose) to share those facts with you
or the general membership, that is their decision to make - not yours.
It's what we elected them for and also what they can be replaced for if
the membership eventually decides that the decisions that were made
were inappropriate.


O.K, this is for Jay and Vaughn. I enjoy this sport as much as the next
pilot but you have to understand that we now have 2 pretty serious
financial screw ups in the last few years.Some of the people at SSA
have been involved in BOTH of these occurances.I kinda would like to
know how my dues $$$ is being spent.Why even have bylaws? If the Board
can get SSA out of this mess, whats to keep it from happening again?I
think that the best thing for the sport is a strong national
organization were this sort of thing doesnt happen repeatedly.
A

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

"Jay" wrote in message
oups.com...

Hear, hear John. Personally I think you folks are doing an exemplary
job in some pretty ugly circumstances. Speaking for myself - thank you
all.

For those others on r.a.s. (are you listening/reading 5-BG?) endless
speculation on something you know nothing about is pointless and
counterproductive. Questions as to why the ED is still there and the
CFO is not, whether the accounting firms insurance should pay or who
should hang are all based on your speculation and not on any facts
whatsoever.


Quote from the SSA's 9/7/2006 information release:
"In this case, the ED was aware of the failure to file for much of the time
he was employed by the SSA (approximately three years). He neither secured
their filing, nor notified the Board of Directors (including the Treasurer)
of the delinquency until July 31, 2006."

So, based on this fact, not "specualtion", why is the ED still employed by
the SSA?

For the record, I do sincerely appreciate the efforts of the SSA directors
to keep the membership informed. The seem to have taken the lessons from
the last scandal (the former ED's credit card abuses and the efforts of some
directors to cover up them up) to heart.

5-BG wrote:
......snip
2. Are they also working to save themselves from potential personal
liability while seking to represent the ssa?

I should bloody well hope so! Given that they did their work for
NOTHING, I HOPE they're working to ensure they don't get hit for any
liability. If they have some time left over to work for the SSA at the
same time, it would be more than you deserve!

You seem to think that the Board members would be doing something wrong
if they didn't let themselves be exposed not only to abuse and
denigration from people like you but should also expose themselves and
their families to penury and bankruptcy.

Bull**** (Your term). They should ensure that they come out of this
free from any financial liability beyond that shared by all SSA members.

GC

Pat Russell wrote:

The SSA leadership is not trying to be nice.

No one said they WERE trying to be nice.Please dont take others posts
out of context.

They have your interests at heart.

You dont know this for sure.It would be prudent to wait until an
investigation is complete before making such a statement.

If they had "shared more information on what was going on" earlier, it
probably would have made the problem worse.

Pat, if they had shared the fact that audits were NOT being conducted 3
years ago (Right after the last incedent), this probably would not have
happened.Think about what you are saying.More information is better,
not worse.



Each week, after working on the real problem, and at a time when I'm
sure they'd like to take a small break, the Executive Committee
composes and publishes a remarkably complete and carefully worded
update for the membership. They aren't doing it to be nice; they are
doing it to keep you informed. They think you deserve it. I'm not so
sure.

What do we deserve Pat?To send 65 bucks, not to mention contest fees
and bussiness dues into some black hole where we get unaudited results
every year?


Quit your sniping.

-Pat

it appears as if the board made a decision to somehow "borrow" money out
of special funds to cover the immediate cash requirement. My question
becomes which fund did they borrow from and under what terms? Further, i
wonder if they actually had the right to divert such funds.. either under
te bylaws of the ssa and/or under the endowment terms?

The Foundation is a separate organization with a separate Board. The SSA had
to ask the Foundation if it could borrow some funds. The Foundation board
decides what funds can be loaned and what funds need to stay committed to
other purposes.

"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

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.

Just for the record, I am STILL respectfully looking forward to a rational
explanation of why our professional ED was not on top of this a year ago. I
don't understand why we are not hearing a general clamor for such an
explanation.

Vaughn



Vaughn

Perhaps we'll have more after the Sep 30th BOD meeting.

Frank Whiteley

Vaughn Simon wrote:
"Vaughn Simon" wrote in message
...

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.

Just for the record, I am STILL respectfully looking forward to a rational
explanation of why our professional ED was not on top of this a year ago. I
don't understand why we are not hearing a general clamor for such an
explanation.

Vaughn



Vaughn

"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message
ups.com...
Perhaps we'll have more after the Sep 30th BOD meeting.

The sooner the better. I don't know about the others, but I will not be
waiting quietly.

This is very BASIC stuff that any professional manager should have had his
finger on.

Vaughn