SSA Leadership after 12/31?

On Dec 8, 8:36 am, Chip Bearden wrote:
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

There is really no point in addressing the issue of the resignation of
the board until after we learn the decision of the IRS in regards to
the penalties and interest (which is in excess of $200K). I was amazed
that the Board thought that the IRS would waive this since it was the
result of internal fraud. The IRS, from my experiences, will NEVER
waive the interest, as it is required by law. They have some
discretion to the penalties, however. Generally, they are pretty hard
nosed about that, too, and waive it only if THEY made a proveable
mistake. This amount will bankrupt the SSA, so resignation of the
Board will be moot. I think that a bankruptcy plan should have ALREADY
been prepared, but I know of no such actions.

Professionalism on both the part of the board and the management of
the SSA has been sadly lacking. I tried to get financials in the past
from my regional director and was rebuffed. He ask WHY I WANTED
THIS!!! My reply: concern that the SSA was going bankrupt. He did send
me some financials that wouldn't pass muster with a Girl Scott troup -
I never did get anything more detailed. I have served on the board of
a multimillion dollar non-profit for over 10 years and we would NEVER
had accepted this state of affairs from the management.

I think that the SSA is in high probability of going bankrupt and we
are in urgent need of a post-bankruptcy reorganization plan.

Tom Seim

On Dec 8, 2:31 pm, wrote:
On Dec 8, 8:36 am, Chip Bearden wrote:



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

There is really no point in addressing the issue of the resignation of
the board until after we learn the decision of the IRS in regards to
the penalties and interest (which is in excess of $200K). I was amazed
that the Board thought that the IRS would waive this since it was the
result of internal fraud. The IRS, from my experiences, will NEVER
waive the interest, as it is required by law. They have some
discretion to the penalties, however. Generally, they are pretty hard
nosed about that, too, and waive it only if THEY made a proveable
mistake. This amount will bankrupt the SSA, so resignation of the
Board will be moot. I think that a bankruptcy plan should have ALREADY
been prepared, but I know of no such actions.

Professionalism on both the part of the board and the management of
the SSA has been sadly lacking. I tried to get financials in the past
from my regional director and was rebuffed. He ask WHY I WANTED
THIS!!! My reply: concern that the SSA was going bankrupt. He did send
me some financials that wouldn't pass muster with a Girl Scott troup -
I never did get anything more detailed. I have served on the board of
a multimillion dollar non-profit for over 10 years and we would NEVER
had accepted this state of affairs from the management.

I think that the SSA is in high probability of going bankrupt and we
are in urgent need of a post-bankruptcy reorganization plan.

Tom Seim

Please refer to the 11/6 ExComm minutes for part of the answer.

Frank Whiteley

On Dec 8, 11:57 am, Frank Whiteley wrote:
On Dec 8, 2:31 pm, wrote:





On Dec 8, 8:36 am, Chip Bearden wrote:

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

There is really no point in addressing the issue of the resignation of
the board until after we learn the decision of the IRS in regards to
the penalties and interest (which is in excess of $200K). I was amazed
that the Board thought that the IRS would waive this since it was the
result of internal fraud. The IRS, from my experiences, will NEVER
waive the interest, as it is required by law. They have some
discretion to the penalties, however. Generally, they are pretty hard
nosed about that, too, and waive it only if THEY made a proveable
mistake. This amount will bankrupt the SSA, so resignation of the
Board will be moot. I think that a bankruptcy plan should have ALREADY
been prepared, but I know of no such actions.

Professionalism on both the part of the board and the management of
the SSA has been sadly lacking. I tried to get financials in the past
from my regional director and was rebuffed. He ask WHY I WANTED
THIS!!! My reply: concern that the SSA was going bankrupt. He did send
me some financials that wouldn't pass muster with a Girl Scott troup -
I never did get anything more detailed. I have served on the board of
a multimillion dollar non-profit for over 10 years and we would NEVER
had accepted this state of affairs from the management.

I think that the SSA is in high probability of going bankrupt and we
are in urgent need of a post-bankruptcy reorganization plan.

Tom Seim

Please refer to the 11/6 ExComm minutes for part of the answer.

Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps you can either post those minutes or direct me to where I can
find them. It seems that ALL information about this important matter
have been REDACTED from the SSA web site.

Tom

wrote:

Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps you can either post those minutes or direct me to where I can
find them. It seems that ALL information about this important matter
have been REDACTED from the SSA web site.

Tom
Still there. Look under The SSA | Governance | SSA Board and Executive
Committee meeting minutes

Nothing has been redacted. Hours of minutes reading available to members.

-Dave

On Dec 8, 4:42 pm, ZL wrote:
wrote:
Frank Whiteley- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Perhaps you can either post those minutes or direct me to where I can
find them. It seems that ALL information about this important matter
have been REDACTED from the SSA web site.

Tom

Still there. Look under The SSA | Governance | SSA Board and Executive
Committee meeting minutes

Nothing has been redacted. Hours of minutes reading available to members.

-Dave

Oh dear God! Please do not destroy the very thing that does so much
good for all soaring pilots. We can afford to survive this only
experience of theft. What the hell,
How many of us has gotten great benefits over the years from
membership in SSA. If we need to, carefully select a person that is a
business manager, that knows how to manage money and make reports that
are understandable and verifiable. He/She does not be a glider pilot.
The directors are not the problem. They just need information and
guidance, Fred

Tom Seim wrote:

There is really no point in addressing the issue of the resignation of
the board until after we learn the decision of the IRS in regards to
the penalties and interest (which is in excess of $200K). I was amazed
that the Board thought that the IRS would waive this since it was the
result of internal fraud. The IRS, from my experiences, will NEVER
waive the interest, as it is required by law. They have some
discretion to the penalties, however. Generally, they are pretty hard
nosed about that, too, and waive it only if THEY made a proveable
mistake. This amount will bankrupt the SSA, so resignation of the
Board will be moot. I think that a bankruptcy plan should have ALREADY
been prepared, but I know of no such actions.

Per this AM's SSA newsletter: the IRS has, in fact, waived the
penalties and will settle for collecting just the interest owed. They
(the IRS) are focused on collecting as much as possible of what is
owed in a timely fashion, something a bankruptcy would interfere with
and will often negotiate reductions to prevent one. Facilitators,
often former IRS employees, have created an industry to assist
delinquent taxpayers in such negotiations. If all else fails, a
friendly congressperson will often intervene on behalf of a well-
connected constituent.

Ray Warshaw
1LK