Important message for SSA members

OK how is the SSA going to come back from this one.

Does the CEO of the corporation not have to sign and or approve
expenditure even as mundane as a simple tax bill/return?

Why is Gleason on paid administrative leave and not terminated for
failure to perform?

Why isn't Dennis Wright on paid administrative leave after this
debacle pending investigation?

Why did the auditors not pick this up?

Does the CEO and CFO not have to sign and approve any annual tax
filings?

Why was the ex-com not informed until now as this has been going on
since 2003?

How on earth did this go for this long unnoticed?

Is this the end of the SSA as an effective representative body?

Are SSA members not liable for a portion of the tax unpaid and
penalties?

Lot of questions but man after the Sanderson issue it cannot get much
worse.

Al


wrote:
Let's not shoot the messenger.

I agree. But I'm referring not to the individual who chose to post the
SSA's message to its members, but to the real messenger: the SSA
Executive Committee.

I suspect they're wrestling with the typical real-world issues that
cause most situations like this to be anything but black or white:
i.e., balancing a natural desire to dismiss the employee who apparently
breached the trust placed in him against considerations such as:

- determining the extent of any losses (did the SSA simply not pay
its bills or are funds missing?) and who may have been involved;
- recovering assets
- collecting the information necessary to file delinquent tax
returns and determine the amount of unpaid withholding taxes
- gaining cooperation that may be critical in the foregoing efforts;

- obtaining and preserving legally admissible evidence;
- evaluating civil and criminal options, including what recourse the
SSA may have against individuals and organizations;
- avoiding any steps that might leave the SSA open to accusations of
libel or wrongful termination (in this country, anything is possible);
careful readers of the letter will note that it is limited to
statements of fact and to Alan Gleason's own admissions--it avoids
other allegations.
- ensuring the damage is contained by implementing better controls;
- dealing with accountants and advisors who may have some explaining
to do;
- retaining and working with legal counsel;
- negotiating with federal and state tax authorities to mitigate
interest and penalties
- communicating with the board, the officers, and the members, etc.

As a 40+ year SSA member, I would be understating it to say I'm angry
and frustrated and depressed at this latest news. But the fact remains
that this time, unlike another unhappy situation in the past, the SSA
Executive Committee made what appears to be timely and extensive
disclosure, remarkably so (given our legal environment) regarding Alan
Gleason's admissions.

Let's confirm the wisdom of their decision by behaving responsibly.
We're free to raise questions, in particular of our elected directors.
But rather than second-guessing, speculating, offering ill-informed
advice, spreading rumors, or accusing anyone, I suggest that we all
stay tuned to www.ssa.org...and to the nearly instantaneous repostings
to this newsgroup by "helpful" members.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

The people who should be nervous are the SSA directors. Failure to pay
witholding taxes becomes a personal liability for each of them.

It certainly begs the question on why have an outside accounting firm, when
they don't notice something as simple as this.

The thing that really gets me, is giving someone "paid administrative leave"
aka a paid vacation for this kind of screw up. Heads should role instead.

Mike Schumann

wrote in message
ups.com...
OK how is the SSA going to come back from this one.

Does the CEO of the corporation not have to sign and or approve
expenditure even as mundane as a simple tax bill/return?

Why is Gleason on paid administrative leave and not terminated for
failure to perform?

Why isn't Dennis Wright on paid administrative leave after this
debacle pending investigation?

Why did the auditors not pick this up?

Does the CEO and CFO not have to sign and approve any annual tax
filings?

Why was the ex-com not informed until now as this has been going on
since 2003?

How on earth did this go for this long unnoticed?

Is this the end of the SSA as an effective representative body?

Are SSA members not liable for a portion of the tax unpaid and
penalties?

Lot of questions but man after the Sanderson issue it cannot get much
worse.

Al


wrote:
Let's not shoot the messenger.

I agree. But I'm referring not to the individual who chose to post the
SSA's message to its members, but to the real messenger: the SSA
Executive Committee.

I suspect they're wrestling with the typical real-world issues that
cause most situations like this to be anything but black or white:
i.e., balancing a natural desire to dismiss the employee who apparently
breached the trust placed in him against considerations such as:

- determining the extent of any losses (did the SSA simply not pay
its bills or are funds missing?) and who may have been involved;
- recovering assets
- collecting the information necessary to file delinquent tax
returns and determine the amount of unpaid withholding taxes
- gaining cooperation that may be critical in the foregoing efforts;

- obtaining and preserving legally admissible evidence;
- evaluating civil and criminal options, including what recourse the
SSA may have against individuals and organizations;
- avoiding any steps that might leave the SSA open to accusations of
libel or wrongful termination (in this country, anything is possible);
careful readers of the letter will note that it is limited to
statements of fact and to Alan Gleason's own admissions--it avoids
other allegations.
- ensuring the damage is contained by implementing better controls;
- dealing with accountants and advisors who may have some explaining
to do;
- retaining and working with legal counsel;
- negotiating with federal and state tax authorities to mitigate
interest and penalties
- communicating with the board, the officers, and the members, etc.

As a 40+ year SSA member, I would be understating it to say I'm angry
and frustrated and depressed at this latest news. But the fact remains
that this time, unlike another unhappy situation in the past, the SSA
Executive Committee made what appears to be timely and extensive
disclosure, remarkably so (given our legal environment) regarding Alan
Gleason's admissions.

Let's confirm the wisdom of their decision by behaving responsibly.
We're free to raise questions, in particular of our elected directors.
But rather than second-guessing, speculating, offering ill-informed
advice, spreading rumors, or accusing anyone, I suggest that we all
stay tuned to www.ssa.org...and to the nearly instantaneous repostings
to this newsgroup by "helpful" members.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

I'm surprised at two things in this thread. First the outrage leveled
at the reposter of the message. Is this really unexpected? Water
isn't the only thing to follow the path of least resistance - the
internet eases the flow of information considerably and anyone that
posts a message here pointing the rest of us to the SSA site should
assume that said information will appear on RAS in short order. Second
the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably stunning. I guess
lifelong members of the SSA have just gotten used to this level of
incompetence? Frankly at this point I am starting to believe that the
best thing that could happen to the SSA is for it to dissolve. I
highly doubt any of the executive members will be honest enough to
state that the biggest threat to the long term viability of the SSA
isn't the declining number of people soaring but the financial
mismanagement of the organization.

-bob

wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm surprised at two things in this thread. Second
the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably stunning.

Well, the outrage at the guy who reposted the information here on ras kind of
squelched the conversation. For the record, based on what I know so far, you
can put me in the camp of those who feel the "Captain of the Ship" (PIC?, CEO?)
bears ultimate responsibility in this case.

Vaughn (a member)

Vaughn Simon wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm surprised at two things in this thread. Second
the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably stunning.

Well, the outrage at the guy who reposted the information here on ras kind of
squelched the conversation. For the record, based on what I know so far, you
can put me in the camp of those who feel the "Captain of the Ship" (PIC?, CEO?)
bears ultimate responsibility in this case.

Vaughn (a member)
I think you need to contact your regional director(s) to gain some
additional insight into the situation.

The financial reports and quarterly statements are available online to
members under governance. You might want to review some of these prior
to contacting your directors. You may also want to look over the
reports of the SSA Foundation.

I understand as a result of the previous problem, part of that solution
(wisely or unwisely) was to not have the CFO reporting directly to the
CEO. I understand also that the CFO apparently did not do what was
asked of him regarding the accountants. Actual details are a bit
sparse at this point, but seem consistent with Dianne's letter to the
members. One can only guess at the possible motives and whether
deception, neglect or omission was involved. Again, contact your
director(s) for further discussion. I'm confident members will be
given appropriate updates.

I don't know if directors will discuss this with those posting here
that are not currently SSA members.

Frank Whiteley

lets get real clear on what was actually reported to the members of SSA by the chair of the board.
1. Gross and material misrepresentations of the financial condition of the society were made by two cfo's, endorsed by current and past ceo and recieved by the current and past chairpersons. These false and misleading financials were submitted while the society had a relationship with a professional accounting firm.

2. Required non profit reports to the government were not filed since 2002.

3. required deposits and reports to federal and state governments of amounts withheld from employee checks and matching contributions were not made beginning 2003.

4. the actual amount not paid is estimated at $300,000 and with penalities and interest was estimated at $600,000. Annual dues at $65 for 16,000 members is about 1 million just as a point in reference.

5. The chair is looking into "borrowing " money from "unrestricted " funds within the foundation. It would not surprise me to hear in a future note to members that these funds have already been looted and that false financial statements have been submitted.

A situation of this magnitude that persists since 2002 and survives multiple managers and boards is simply not the work of an isolated individual. It is inconceivable to me that a professional accounting firm, post enron, does not understand that its primary legal obligation is to the ASSOCIATION and that it has a duty to bring such malfeasance to the attention of the chairman OR TO RESIGN.

We have been told that an outside attorney has been retained to determine the scope of the problem. It is inconceivable to me that that attorney would continue to use the services of the old accounting firm. In any event, NO ESTIMATE WAS GIVEN as to the projected cost of the attorney investigation nor of the cost of redoing all financial statements and preparing back reports. You can bet it will BE PLENTY. Full and complete audits are expensive.

In my opinion, this is a systemic problem that i find difficult to imagine was confined to one individual. Am I to believe that no notices of deliquency were ever sent to SSA? and if sent that they were seen by only the "one individual"? Am I to believe that this one individual cooked the books before he was even hired? or that his assistant was totally in the dark. Or that the current and past ceo was so out of touch with a very small office that they had no idea of what was going on?? In corporate America, the CEO SIGNS THE RETURNS and is responsible. I would assume the same applies to a non profit.

The real problem that longtime members such as myself face is that of group insurance coverage. I do NOT BELIEVE that SSA will survive this ordeal. I just got a quote for lesser coverage with a $1,000 deductable ( current deductable is zero) policy for my glider. It was $400 more than the grpoup coverage through ssa. AND if I wish to add a pilot to my policy it costs an extra $100. Clearly, I have remained a dues paying member of ssa for the past several years, not because the organization addressed my needs as a pilot, BUT FOR THE INSURANCE.
Perhaps Costello could and should get ahead of this issue and begin putting together an ex SSA group policy.

I am seriously disgusted with this whole mess and am not at all optomistic that all of the monetary problems have been fully disclosed. It is going to be very interesting to see what, if anything, remains in the RESTRICTED as well as UNRESTRICTED fund bank accounts. I am also going to be VERY ****ED OFF if the insurance issue is used to "encourage" members to pay a special assessment to cover back payments, and the cost of figuring out the mess.

Make available a group insurance policy under a different umbrella organization and i believe that a significant part of the membership will vote with their feet. I barely glance at the magazine that is geared towards the el;ite contest pilots and their exploits. As for the four staff committments cited in my recent letter of renewal, i would add enriching themselves as a fifth.
"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message oups.com...

Vaughn Simon wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm surprised at two things in this thread. Second
the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably stunning.

Well, the outrage at the guy who reposted the information here on ras kind of
squelched the conversation. For the record, based on what I know so far, you
can put me in the camp of those who feel the "Captain of the Ship" (PIC?, CEO?)
bears ultimate responsibility in this case.

Vaughn (a member)
I think you need to contact your regional director(s) to gain some
additional insight into the situation.

The financial reports and quarterly statements are available online to
members under governance. You might want to review some of these prior
to contacting your directors. You may also want to look over the
reports of the SSA Foundation.

I understand as a result of the previous problem, part of that solution
(wisely or unwisely) was to not have the CFO reporting directly to the
CEO. I understand also that the CFO apparently did not do what was
asked of him regarding the accountants. Actual details are a bit
sparse at this point, but seem consistent with Dianne's letter to the
members. One can only guess at the possible motives and whether
deception, neglect or omission was involved. Again, contact your
director(s) for further discussion. I'm confident members will be
given appropriate updates.

I don't know if directors will discuss this with those posting here
that are not currently SSA members.

Frank Whiteley

Well, maybe they just had computer problems .... Oh yeah, I forgot, we
already covered that several years ago.



"5-BG" 5-bghatesspam @ fake.com wrote in message
...
lets get real clear on what was actually reported to the members of SSA by
the chair of the board.
1. Gross and material misrepresentations of the financial condition of the
society were made by two cfo's, endorsed by current and past ceo and
recieved by the current and past chairpersons. These false and misleading
financials were submitted while the society had a relationship with a
professional accounting firm.

2. Required non profit reports to the government were not filed since
2002.

3. required deposits and reports to federal and state governments of amounts
withheld from employee checks and matching contributions were not made
beginning 2003.

4. the actual amount not paid is estimated at $300,000 and with penalities
and interest was estimated at $600,000. Annual dues at $65 for 16,000
members is about 1 million just as a point in reference.

5. The chair is looking into "borrowing " money from "unrestricted " funds
within the foundation. It would not surprise me to hear in a future note to
members that these funds have already been looted and that false financial
statements have been submitted.

A situation of this magnitude that persists since 2002 and survives
multiple managers and boards is simply not the work of an isolated
individual. It is inconceivable to me that a professional accounting firm,
post enron, does not understand that its primary legal obligation is to the
ASSOCIATION and that it has a duty to bring such malfeasance to the
attention of the chairman OR TO RESIGN.

We have been told that an outside attorney has been retained to determine
the scope of the problem. It is inconceivable to me that that attorney would
continue to use the services of the old accounting firm. In any event, NO
ESTIMATE WAS GIVEN as to the projected cost of the attorney investigation
nor of the cost of redoing all financial statements and preparing back
reports. You can bet it will BE PLENTY. Full and complete audits are
expensive.

In my opinion, this is a systemic problem that i find difficult to imagine
was confined to one individual. Am I to believe that no notices of
deliquency were ever sent to SSA? and if sent that they were seen by only
the "one individual"? Am I to believe that this one individual cooked the
books before he was even hired? or that his assistant was totally in the
dark. Or that the current and past ceo was so out of touch with a very small
office that they had no idea of what was going on?? In corporate America,
the CEO SIGNS THE RETURNS and is responsible. I would assume the same
applies to a non profit.

The real problem that longtime members such as myself face is that of
group insurance coverage. I do NOT BELIEVE that SSA will survive this
ordeal. I just got a quote for lesser coverage with a $1,000 deductable (
current deductable is zero) policy for my glider. It was $400 more than the
grpoup coverage through ssa. AND if I wish to add a pilot to my policy it
costs an extra $100. Clearly, I have remained a dues paying member of ssa
for the past several years, not because the organization addressed my needs
as a pilot, BUT FOR THE INSURANCE.
Perhaps Costello could and should get ahead of this issue and begin putting
together an ex SSA group policy.

I am seriously disgusted with this whole mess and am not at all optomistic
that all of the monetary problems have been fully disclosed. It is going to
be very interesting to see what, if anything, remains in the RESTRICTED as
well as UNRESTRICTED fund bank accounts. I am also going to be VERY ****ED
OFF if the insurance issue is used to "encourage" members to pay a special
assessment to cover back payments, and the cost of figuring out the mess.

Make available a group insurance policy under a different umbrella
organization and i believe that a significant part of the membership will
vote with their feet. I barely glance at the magazine that is geared towards
the el;ite contest pilots and their exploits. As for the four staff
committments cited in my recent letter of renewal, i would add enriching
themselves as a fifth.

How did this go on for so long?

My reading of the by-laws gives the Xcom way too much power. Lack of
oversight for (mostly) appointed directors may be excusable due to
their twice annual meeting. The XCOM selects its own members, meets
frequently and sets direction for the association. That does not sound
too good for the members.

Sign me a former member.