The Audit, the board, the by-laws

Frank,
You are 100% correct. But I would counter with "coulda, shoulda,
wouldve"! This is one of those "dead right" scenarios. For instance,
"He/she never wouldve run out of gas", or "he/she never wouldve run
into that mountain", he/she was an excellent pilot/board member. Yep,
right, now let's look at all the facts.

Companies select supposed high level individuals to make sure all these
bases are covered, and ask the devils advocate questions. And when they
don't, and time goes by and a problem raises it's head, well I guess
that's where the "jury of our peers" will take over, and they will
decide if it was just an "oversight". All the fancy, technical, "the
minutes will show" stuff is out the window.

It's who's sitting in the jury box, and how they feel about people who
make mistakes with other peoples lives, money and family. Serious, but
interesting stuff, the kind of stuff that dad expressed with "don't do
anything that you don't want to have to explain".

"Nothing more, nothing less".

Cheers,
snoop

snoop wrote:
Frank,
You are 100% correct. But I would counter with "coulda, shoulda,
wouldve"! This is one of those "dead right" scenarios. For instance,
"He/she never wouldve run out of gas", or "he/she never wouldve run
into that mountain", he/she was an excellent pilot/board member. Yep,
right, now let's look at all the facts.


Snoop,

I do not understand your comments at all. In my comments I said the
board did "run out of gas", and "did run into that mountain". I simply
pointed out that they did not deliberately do so by voting to "run out
of gas" and by voting to "ignore the by-laws. Additionally I made no
comment whatsoever about any board members being an excellent
pilots/board members.

Are you suggesting that those who rune out of gas do so deliberately?
That they conspire to run into the mountain?

Companies select supposed high level individuals to make sure all these
bases are covered, and ask the devils advocate questions. And when they
don't, and time goes by and a problem raises it's head, well I guess
that's where the "jury of our peers" will take over, and they will
decide if it was just an "oversight". All the fancy, technical, "the
minutes will show" stuff is out the window.

You, the SSA members select the board members.

To suggest that the volunteer SSA Board members did anything other than
make an honest error (be it a stupid one) is to imply some type of
conspiracy theory. I know the vast majority of the board members and
all of the current excom members. While I have certainly had my
disagreements with some of them I believe it is absolutely absurd to
think that any one of them or any group of them has anything other than
the best interests of the SSA in their decisions on the board. I take
great offense with your statement "... they will decide if it was just
an oversight".


It's who's sitting in the jury box, and how they feel about people who
make mistakes with other peoples lives, money and family. Serious, but
interesting stuff, the kind of stuff that dad expressed with "don't do
anything that you don't want to have to explain".

As for judging what the penality should be for a mistake by the board,
I was not discussing that issue at all. It is something you decided to
throw into the mix. Certainly there are situations where an simple
mistake has some bad legal consequences. I hope that no member of the
board due to an honest mistake has to experience that. I also hope
that none of you here on the ras have to experinece that from making
veiled accusations as to the integrety, honesty and the intentions of
the members of the SSA Board.

You would indeed be wise to adhear to your dad's advise, "don't do (or
say) anything that you don't want to have to explain".

Regards,

Frank Reid


"Nothing more, nothing less".

Cheers,
snoop

Frank Reid wrote:

Snoop,

I do not understand your comments at all. In my comments I said the
board did "run out of gas", and "did run into that mountain". I simply
pointed out that they did not deliberately do so by voting to "run out
of gas" and by voting to "ignore the by-laws. Additionally I made no
comment whatsoever about any board members being an excellent
pilots/board members.

Are you suggesting that those who rune out of gas do so deliberately?
That they conspire to run into the mountain?

Snoop, if I may join in? Frank, I think what Snoop meant by this is
that running out of gas suggests a lack of planning or situational
awareness.

You, the SSA members select the board members.

True, but the board picks the Executive Committee.

To suggest that the volunteer SSA Board members did anything other than
make an honest error (be it a stupid one) is to imply some type of
conspiracy theory.

There! behind the grassy knole!Just kidding.

I know the vast majority of the board members and
all of the current excom members.

Why is it that most of the people on RAS claim to know all these
people?Do you know Dennis Wright also?What was he thinking?

I also hope
that none of you here on the ras have to experinece that from making
veiled accusations as to the integrety, honesty and the intentions of
the members of the SSA Board.

Frank, To most of us on RAS or the SSA its not about accusing anyone.
Its about seeing that our dues $$$$ (And contest fees, bussiness dues,
etc.) are invested in such a maner as to further the sport.In the past
few years this has clearly not been the case.

You would indeed be wise to adhear to your dad's advise, "don't do (or
say) anything that you don't want to have to explain".

Regards,

Frank Reid


"Nothing more, nothing less".
A

Bingo! Thanks Alice for clarifying that for Frank. Stictly a white elephant scenario to address Franks, "But it was an oversight by the board" message.