Important update from SSA

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:

As an SSA member since 1971 I think it's stupid to limit
this information to the SSA members who actually go to the
SSA website and click on a tiny "important news" icon. I
might never have known about the seriousness of this issue
if not for the original post here. I'm grateful for that
post. Even after I knew the contents of the letter, it took
me some time to find any hint of the problem on the SSA
website.

I've reluctantly decided to honor the SSA's decision about
how they want to handle distributing this information, but I
think it's shortsighted and extremely unfair to new members.
The SSA is in trouble and we need all the friends we can
get. To gain trust, we need to be as open as possible. The
first letter was good start, but it should have been front
and center on the web page. The update letter is even
better. I'd like to see it here.
--
T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C

Todd,

I was one of the first to object to the member who reposted Dianne
Black-Nixon's letter to RAS. The reason was primarily because of the
arrogance with which he said, in effect, "I know what's better for the
organization than any of you" and apparently in a very few minutes.

I assumed the ExComm had good reasons for attempting to make the news
available, at least initially, only to SSA members (though the request
for members to view the announcement was widely disseminated, including
on RAS). The member in question apparently didn't feel any
responsibility to consider what those reasons might be. Frankly, my
experience has been that it's difficult to reason with people like
this: they know what's "right" and don't want to be confused by the
facts or opposing views. What worries me is the effect they have on the
other members who read RAS.

The same goes for the posters who have mouthed off with gross
generalizations about incompetence and pronouncements about accounting,
tax codes, and law without having the facts to support what are clearly
assumptions, interpretations, or opinions (though they are often not
stated as such).

Your response, on the other hand, was thoughtful and reasoned,
cognizant that yours is only one view, and offered an alternative. At
this point, I reluctantly agree with you. Given what's been disclosed
and the ruckus that ensued, it's probably better if this and future
Updates were published on a public area of the SSA site.

But, like you, I'll go along with the ExComm's implicit request to keep
their letter on the SSA site for the time being. I'm willing to give
them and the full board the opportunity to do the right thing in what
is very dark hour for soaring in the U.S.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"