Present SSA crisis

The SSA has a professional executive director. This is the position
that should provide the professional management, or who should at least
recognize his knowledge holes and call in appropriate resources such
that the Society is run in a professional matter, with appropriate
managerial/financial controls, etc. Plan, organize, lead and control,
that is what he is supposed to do. He in turn should be supervised by
an Executive Board, whose members, if they don't have management
expertise, should utilize folk with those skills to assist them in
appropriately managing the executive directorand entire operation. The
overall Board then should provide guidance and input etc to the
Executive Board Both the current executive director and the Executive
Board and the Board did not effectively perform their duties related to
this manner. Clean house. Move the office somewhere where a
reasonable number average members can get to it to visit, oversee, and
volunteer.
Janice Armstrong
Family member and long-time volunteer

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Sam Fly wrote:


Frank Reid wrote:

Frank, SSA was moved to Hobbs due to the efforts of Jack Gomez, Mr Hobbs
in his day, and Judge Hal Lattimore...Jack wanted it and Judge Lattimore
as a Director of Region 10 delivered it. Marion Griffith had a sweet
deal for a site near DFW Airport between Dallas and Fort Worth. But the
Judge had control of the BOD's actions, in those days.

I was there, and Hal (Judge) Lattimore (did not control the BOD's
actions. I certainly did not get any pressure from him. Sterling Starr
was in control of the process (not the outcome) and I think he did a
damn good job. He didn't seem like the kind of guy Hal could push around.

This is a "reprint" of a posting I made about Jan 2005:

"Warning: some details below may differ from the facts, due to imperfect
memory!

The decision to locate the SSA headquarters in Hobbs was not easy,
cheap, or done casually. I was a Regional director at the time (about 15
years ago) when it was decided to move the headquarters out of Santa
Monica, which had become extremely expensive to lease.

The process consumed considerable time and effort over many, many months
on the Director's part, as they sought bids from all over the country.
The primary bids came from soaring groups in Colorado Springs, Elmira,
and Hobbs. Each place made passionate presentations, describing why
their place was the best.

When it came time to vote, the majority of the Directors voted for Hobbs
as the best overall bid for meeting the Society's needs. All bidders had
strengths in different areas, but Hobbs (in the form of the city and the
county) offer of substantial financial assistance, other aid, and a
history of low labor costs, tipped the balance. At the time of our vote,
the Society was swimming in red ink, and this aid was crucial.

As a result, we acquired a fine new office building built to our
specifications in an area of excellent soaring, just across the street
from the airport where regional and national contests are held, and
where the National Soaring Foundation conducts its operation.

Re-locating the office is possible and would yield some benefits, but
the overall picture must be considered very carefully to ensure a net
benefit after the time and costs of finding a new place, moving there,
and continuing operational costs are included."

--

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

Earlier, Jan Armstrong wrote:
...Move the office somewhere where a
reasonable number average members can
get to it to visit, oversee, and volunteer.
^^^^^^^^^

As I was saying in that other thread, Tehachapi is a perfect fit!



Bob K.

I have no problems with bringing in consultants/biz school folks if
that is what it takes, but the bottom line is that the executive
director should have management capabilities such that a large number
of consultants or consultant $$ should not be necessary. It would be
great to find a soaring pilot with the appropriate skills. But IMHO
this is a problem with Hobbs, it is not "executive-attractive" for
recruiting, with all due respect to Hobbs. This is another reason why
the SSA office should be located in a different location. Things I
would think about related to a good location would be (1) a location in
which it would be reasonably easy to convince a good ED candidate to
relocate to; (2) a location that is easy to reach via commercial
flights, preferably at or near a hub/hub equivalent, for both board
members and volunteers, and (3) a ready base of local volunteers or
near-local volunteers who can easily drive in. What you inspect
people respect.
Janice Armstrong

wrote:
My understanding is that years ago when the SSA "worked" it was run by
young dynamic leaders who loved soaring (e.g. John Dezutti) who took a
position like ED almost right out of college/B-school, spent several
years learning the ropes of running a large organization, then moved on
to bigger and better things (notice the success of the 83 Worlds
organized under a tight timeline following the UK's scuffle with
Argentina/Falklands Islands in this timeframe). They were probably
also cheaper than the six figure ED's we've had lately. I'm all in
favor of this plan, and hell, I even know where you can find one (or
more) individuals who fit the description.

2c


wrote:
Greg Arnold wrote:
If the SSA survives, it really needs to hire an outside consultant who
is an expert on non-profit membership organizations, and who can advise
about the proper governing structure.

A good idea, but it might be even better to see if we could get help
from Harvard, Stanford or similar Biz School alumni on a volunteer
basis. I know both Harvard and Stanford have programs of this nature to
help non-profit organizations run more efficiently. One of my good
friends does this through Harvard's program and he is a first rate
consultant, much better than SSA could probably afford to hire. (He's
the former CFO of a public company.) And he puts in a fair amount of
time on his projects. It's not just a "look good" thing.

A big question is whether there are any such people willing to work on
SSA, esp given its remote location. Maybe there are some such people on
this site??

"Dan and Jan Armstrong" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have no problems with bringing in consultants/biz school folks if
that is what it takes, but the bottom line is that the executive
director should have management capabilities such that a large number
of consultants or consultant $$ should not be necessary.

Which begs the question, how could our professional ED possibly have missed
such basic and blatant problems for so long?

Vaughn

"But IMHO this is a problem with Hobbs, it is not "executive-attractive" for
recruiting, with all due respect to Hobbs. This is another reason why
the SSA office should be located in a different location."

The present problem stems from dishonesty and/or incompetence. It has
nothing to do with Hobbs. Enron was not based in Hobbs. The same reasons
that the SSA moved to Hobbs continue. As far as I am concerned, a large
city is not executive-attractive. This comment makes the assumption that
there is not one person who could manage a relatively small company who
would leave the big city life and relocate to Hobbs. As a matter of fact,
most of the companies that are having financial problems are based in large
cities, with access to airway hubs, people, schools, garbage pickup and
wireless internet. Ford just did a massive restructuring - it is
headquarted in a large city. I bet one of the executives that was just
terminated would not mind moving to Hobbs to start anew.

Colin

Jim Vincent wrote:
What do you call a "similar" grad school?
Well there is my Alma Mater, which happens to have a Master's
program in nonprofit management. I imagine that there are others out
there.

http://www.fau.edu/divdept/caupa/adv.../overview.html


Do you have to fly an ASW-29 as well?

Actually, that is not an idle question!

Vaughn

COLIN LAMB wrote:


Ford just did a massive restructuring - it is
headquarted in a large city. I bet one of the executives that was just
terminated would not mind moving to Hobbs to start anew.


Particularly if he is a bit of a recluse.

One would expect that there are hundreds of qualified people within an
hour or two drive of the Denver area, for example, who might be
interested -- if they didn't have to move their families to Hobbs NM.

Does the perfect hire exist somewhere out there? No doubt. Does s/he
want to move to Hobbs NM? Doubt.


Jack

I'm not convinced that the current problem has nothing to do with
Hobbs. I believe if the office were located somewhere more
convenient, maybe Board members and members and volunteers might have
come in and, in the case of the Board, supervised more closely. Maybe
a finance committee meeting in Hobbs might have caught this earlier.
My big question is, if Dennis Wright knew about this, why didn't he say
anything to the Board? Maybe Board presence and working more closely
(in a proximate fashion) might have fostered a climate where he was
able to report this earlier, when it was only a l"ittle" problem.

There are a whole bunch of better locations than Hobbs, in terms of
ease of access for visitors/volunteers. The Denver area is just one
example.

Janice Armstrong

Jack wrote:
COLIN LAMB wrote:


Ford just did a massive restructuring - it is
headquarted in a large city. I bet one of the executives that was just
terminated would not mind moving to Hobbs to start anew.


Particularly if he is a bit of a recluse.

One would expect that there are hundreds of qualified people within an
hour or two drive of the Denver area, for example, who might be
interested -- if they didn't have to move their families to Hobbs NM.

Does the perfect hire exist somewhere out there? No doubt. Does s/he
want to move to Hobbs NM? Doubt.


Jack

Hobbs' geographical position is only one aspect of
the 'remoteness' of the SSA. Clearly the Board and
ExCom were not in close touch with the activities at
Hobbs. It is equally clear that neither the Board
nor the staff are in close touch with the interests
and opinions of the membership as a whole.

It really is time for a general election for a whole
new Board, a revision of the by-laws to increase overall
transparency and prevent 'overlooking' clearly stated
requirements, a review of the functions of the staff,
and possibly a subsequent decision to relocate or outsource
the back office functions.

Why has there been no rational explanation of the ED's
role in this fiasco ? Why has the Board appointed
a subset of itself to investigate itself ? What is
being done with the Foundation's funds to tackle the
financial problem, and what are the understandings
on re-funding the Foundation afterwards ? There may
be innocuous answers to these questions, but until
they are addressed members have both a right and a
duty to press for more information.

Board members complain about the highly negative attitudes
towards the SSA from its own membership [and the ED
is a skilled whiner about the calls he fields from
members]. Members are upset because they have been
getting lousy service from an SSA that has not responded
to their needs. We need a fresh start. Keeping the
same groups of people in the same locations will ensure
that we will also keep the same old attitudes and behaviors
that have failed us so badly in the past.

Individual Board members are hard-working volunteers,
but the entire culture is unhealthy.

Let me give two examples. The first relates directly
to the Hobbs problem. Look at http://www.ssa.org/download/6ssa27.
doc
and read agenda item 5.0

'Agenda Item 5.0 Soaring Magazine

The Excomm reviewed the staff’s paper on advertising
for a proofreader in Hobbs, carried out at the Excomm’s
request. The purpose of doing so was to ascertain local
availability of such skills and establish a benchmark
hourly rate. Given the pitifully poor quality of all
the respondents to the advertisement, the Excomm then
concurred in the continuation of the present arrangements
for Ms. Diana Wright, the Executive Director’s spouse,
working as part-time proofreader for Soaring Magazine.'

If even a competent proofreader cannot be found in
Hobbs, and our selected work-around smacks of nepotism,
is Hobbs really a good place to conduct our business
?

Second, the by-laws which our Board apparently does
not feel obliged to obey in the case of audits, also
state that

'At least one-third (1/3) of the number of Directors
as fixed by these bylaws, shall be necessary to constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business '.

The by-laws provide for a Board of 26 Directors; a
quorum would require 9 to be present. Yet the Board
has decided to delegate all its powers to an ExCom
of only 5 Directors. If the full Board needs 9, is
it within either the letter or the spirit of the by-laws
to make major decisions with a subset of only 5 ?
Ther is no specific mention of the ExCom in the by-laws,
yet the ExCom minutes routinely start by stating 'a
quorum being present'.

I repeat, this culture is unhealthy and must be rooted
out.

Sorry to bring all this up on ras, but the SSA does
not provide any alternative internal platform for its
members to express their disquiet.

Ian



At 22:48 21 September 2006, Dan and Jan Armstrong wrote:
I'm not convinced that the current problem has nothing
to do with
Hobbs. I believe if the office were located somewhere
more
convenient, maybe Board members and members and volunteers
might have
come in and, in the case of the Board, supervised more
closely. Maybe
a finance committee meeting in Hobbs might have caught
this earlier.
My big question is, if Dennis Wright knew about this,
why didn't he say
anything to the Board? Maybe Board presence and working
more closely
(in a proximate fashion) might have fostered a climate
where he was
able to report this earlier, when it was only a l'ittle'
problem.

There are a whole bunch of better locations than Hobbs,
in terms of
ease of access for visitors/volunteers. The Denver
area is just one
example.

Janice Armstrong

Jack wrote:
COLIN LAMB wrote:


Ford just did a massive restructuring - it is
headquarted in a large city. I bet one of the executives
that was just
terminated would not mind moving to Hobbs to start
anew.


Particularly if he is a bit of a recluse.

One would expect that there are hundreds of qualified
people within an
hour or two drive of the Denver area, for example,
who might be
interested -- if they didn't have to move their families
to Hobbs NM.

Does the perfect hire exist somewhere out there? No
doubt. Does s/he
want to move to Hobbs NM? Doubt.


Jack

Which of the many things that need doing will you do?
Perhaps the largest problem in SSA is the scarcity of volunteers. Why do we
have the same Regional Directors over and over? Because others rarely run
for the office.

Why the scarcity of volunteers? Beyond the pressures on time each of us
faces, the other side of the equation is 'what do we get from the SSA?' My
soaring is dependent on my wife's support, my club, the FAI, the SRA, and
the SSA, in that order. Maybe there's a problem with the value equation.

"Ian Cant" wrote in message
...
Hobbs' geographical position is only one aspect of
the 'remoteness' of the SSA. Clearly the Board and
ExCom were not in close touch with the activities at
Hobbs. It is equally clear that neither the Board
nor the staff are in close touch with the interests
and opinions of the membership as a whole.

It really is time for a general election for a whole
new Board, a revision of the by-laws to increase overall
transparency and prevent 'overlooking' clearly stated
requirements, a review of the functions of the staff,
and possibly a subsequent decision to relocate or outsource
the back office functions.

Why has there been no rational explanation of the ED's
role in this fiasco ? Why has the Board appointed
a subset of itself to investigate itself ? What is
being done with the Foundation's funds to tackle the
financial problem, and what are the understandings
on re-funding the Foundation afterwards ? There may
be innocuous answers to these questions, but until
they are addressed members have both a right and a
duty to press for more information.

Board members complain about the highly negative attitudes
towards the SSA from its own membership [and the ED
is a skilled whiner about the calls he fields from
members]. Members are upset because they have been
getting lousy service from an SSA that has not responded
to their needs. We need a fresh start. Keeping the
same groups of people in the same locations will ensure
that we will also keep the same old attitudes and behaviors
that have failed us so badly in the past.

Individual Board members are hard-working volunteers,
but the entire culture is unhealthy.

Let me give two examples. The first relates directly
to the Hobbs problem. Look at http://www.ssa.org/download/6ssa27.
doc
and read agenda item 5.0

'Agenda Item 5.0 Soaring Magazine

The Excomm reviewed the staff's paper on advertising
for a proofreader in Hobbs, carried out at the Excomm's
request. The purpose of doing so was to ascertain local
availability of such skills and establish a benchmark
hourly rate. Given the pitifully poor quality of all
the respondents to the advertisement, the Excomm then
concurred in the continuation of the present arrangements
for Ms. Diana Wright, the Executive Director's spouse,
working as part-time proofreader for Soaring Magazine.'

If even a competent proofreader cannot be found in
Hobbs, and our selected work-around smacks of nepotism,
is Hobbs really a good place to conduct our business
?

Second, the by-laws which our Board apparently does
not feel obliged to obey in the case of audits, also
state that

'At least one-third (1/3) of the number of Directors
as fixed by these bylaws, shall be necessary to constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business '.

The by-laws provide for a Board of 26 Directors; a
quorum would require 9 to be present. Yet the Board
has decided to delegate all its powers to an ExCom
of only 5 Directors. If the full Board needs 9, is
it within either the letter or the spirit of the by-laws
to make major decisions with a subset of only 5 ?
Ther is no specific mention of the ExCom in the by-laws,
yet the ExCom minutes routinely start by stating 'a
quorum being present'.

I repeat, this culture is unhealthy and must be rooted
out.

Sorry to bring all this up on ras, but the SSA does
not provide any alternative internal platform for its
members to express their disquiet.

Ian



At 22:48 21 September 2006, Dan and Jan Armstrong wrote:
I'm not convinced that the current problem has nothing
to do with
Hobbs. I believe if the office were located somewhere
more
convenient, maybe Board members and members and volunteers
might have
come in and, in the case of the Board, supervised more
closely. Maybe
a finance committee meeting in Hobbs might have caught
this earlier.
My big question is, if Dennis Wright knew about this,
why didn't he say
anything to the Board? Maybe Board presence and working
more closely
(in a proximate fashion) might have fostered a climate
where he was
able to report this earlier, when it was only a l'ittle'
problem.

There are a whole bunch of better locations than Hobbs,
in terms of
ease of access for visitors/volunteers. The Denver
area is just one
example.

Janice Armstrong

Jack wrote:
COLIN LAMB wrote:


Ford just did a massive restructuring - it is
headquarted in a large city. I bet one of the executives
that was just
terminated would not mind moving to Hobbs to start
anew.


Particularly if he is a bit of a recluse.

One would expect that there are hundreds of qualified
people within an
hour or two drive of the Denver area, for example,
who might be
interested -- if they didn't have to move their families
to Hobbs NM.

Does the perfect hire exist somewhere out there? No
doubt. Does s/he
want to move to Hobbs NM? Doubt.


Jack