Important update from SSA

[[email protected]]

Text attached below:

Just kidding! You know where to find it.

[Terry[_2_]]

So if the XCOM is planning to resign at the conclusion of this, and the
XCOM selects its members, who will be the new members and who will
select them?

[Mike the Strike]

A very informative message indeed. At least they're keeping us
up-to-date.

It seems clear that money has disappeared from the SSA accounts and
somewhere near $1/2 million will be needed to pay back taxes and such.
If the money can't be found and recovered, there may be no SSA for
anyone to resign from!


Mike


Terry wrote:
> So if the XCOM is planning to resign at the conclusion of this, and the
> XCOM selects its members, who will be the new members and who will
> select them?

[[email protected]]

The message did not address the most pressing issue, which is: am I
going to receive my October Soaring on time? Or at all?


Mike the Strike wrote:
> A very informative message indeed. At least they're keeping us
> up-to-date.
>
> It seems clear that money has disappeared from the SSA accounts and
> somewhere near $1/2 million will be needed to pay back taxes and such.
> If the money can't be found and recovered, there may be no SSA for
> anyone to resign from!
>
>
> Mike
>
>
> Terry wrote:
> > So if the XCOM is planning to resign at the conclusion of this, and the
> > XCOM selects its members, who will be the new members and who will
> > select them?

[Andrew Wood]

Have you looked at Sailplane and Gliding? It's much
better.

At 22:12 07 September 2006, wrote:
>The message did not address the most pressing issue,
>which is: am I
>going to receive my October Soaring on time? Or at
>all?
>
>
>Mike the Strike wrote:
>> A very informative message indeed. At least they're
>>keeping us
>> up-to-date.
>>
>> It seems clear that money has disappeared from the
>>SSA accounts and
>> somewhere near $1/2 million will be needed to pay
>>back taxes and such.
>> If the money can't be found and recovered, there may
>>be no SSA for
>> anyone to resign from!
>>
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>> Terry wrote:
>> > So if the XCOM is planning to resign at the conclusion
>>>of this, and the
>> > XCOM selects its members, who will be the new members
>>>and who will
>> > select them?
>
>

[Frank Whiteley]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> wrote:
>
> >Text attached below:
> >Just kidding! You know where to find it.
>
> 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
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

All SSA members have been invited numerous times to subscribe to SSA
eNews. The letter and update first arrived here by that means. Highly
recommended. The SSA eNews also provides other useful and timely
information. Once subscribed, it takes little effort to stay informed.

Frank Whiteley

[Wayne Paul]

Todd,

I have found the e-new very informative. It is in the members section.
http://www.ssa.org/test/members/enews_subscribe.asp?p1=subscribe

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/photogallery/Mackay_2006


"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Frank Whiteley" > wrote:
>
>>> As an SSA member since 1971
>
>>All SSA members have been invited numerous times to subscribe to SSA
>>eNews.
>
> I've never received such an invite and I'm not familiar with
> SSA eNews. Now that you've mentioned it, I'll hunt it up
> and subscribe, but there are bound to be others who've never
> heard of it. Even if that email hit every member, I'd be
> opposed to the members-only policy, even if it was simply
> out of fairness to potential new members and my concern that
> openness serves us better in the long run.
>
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Mike Schumann]

I've never heard of it either.

Mike Schumann

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> "Frank Whiteley" > wrote:
>
>>> As an SSA member since 1971
>
>>All SSA members have been invited numerous times to subscribe to SSA
>>eNews.
>
> I've never received such an invite and I'm not familiar with
> SSA eNews. Now that you've mentioned it, I'll hunt it up
> and subscribe, but there are bound to be others who've never
> heard of it. Even if that email hit every member, I'd be
> opposed to the members-only policy, even if it was simply
> out of fairness to potential new members and my concern that
> openness serves us better in the long run.
>
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Mike Schumann]

Part of the problem is that financial and budget information does seem to be
shared with the members either. I looked on the SSA web site, and I can't
find anything. If the latest financial statements and budgets were posted
on the web site, even if just for members, someone might have noticed these
discrepancies a long time ago.

Mike Schumann

"T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
>>Text attached below:
>>Just kidding! You know where to find it.
>
> 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
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Markus[_1_]]

The SSA, SSA Foundation and US Team Financial reporting can be found on
the SSA website here:

http://www.ssa.org/members/governance/Financials.asp

If you log in as a member you can naviagte to it by choosing the
left-hand menu options The SSA > Governance.

Markus

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Wayne Paul" > wrote:
>
> >I have found the e-new very informative. It is in the members section.
> >http://www.ssa.org/test/members/enews_subscribe.asp?p1=subscribe
>
> Thanks, I found it and subscribed.
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[[email protected]]

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"

[[email protected]]

I think the main problem was not that the financial statements weren't
posted, but that they were fraudulent. If you do some digging on the
SSA web site, you can find the minutes of all the directors meetings,
which sometimes have budget and financial statements attached.


Mike Schumann wrote:
> Part of the problem is that financial and budget information does seem to be
> shared with the members either. I looked on the SSA web site, and I can't
> find anything. If the latest financial statements and budgets were posted
> on the web site, even if just for members, someone might have noticed these
> discrepancies a long time ago.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
> ...
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Text attached below:
> >>Just kidding! You know where to find it.
> >
> > 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
> > (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[Frank Whiteley]

You're right to some extent, information on SSA eNews is noticeably
missing from recent issues of Soaring following the initial few
notices. At that rate, it doesn't do new members much good and clearly
long time members also missed it. I sent a notice to my club members
and to all of the soaring organizations in Colorado when it was first
launched. I've sent an e-mail requesting that a 'box' regarding SSA
eNews be included in every issue of Soaring with instructions on where
to subscribe. There seem to be a number of information 'boxes' for
all manner of items, so clearly eNews should be among them.

I recall the number of subscribers being rather low a few months after
the initial launch.

Frank Whiteley


Mike Schumann wrote:
> I've never heard of it either.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "T o d d P a t t i s t" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Frank Whiteley" > wrote:
> >
> >>> As an SSA member since 1971
> >
> >>All SSA members have been invited numerous times to subscribe to SSA
> >>eNews.
> >
> > I've never received such an invite and I'm not familiar with
> > SSA eNews. Now that you've mentioned it, I'll hunt it up
> > and subscribe, but there are bound to be others who've never
> > heard of it. Even if that email hit every member, I'd be
> > opposed to the members-only policy, even if it was simply
> > out of fairness to potential new members and my concern that
> > openness serves us better in the long run.
> >
> > --
> > T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> > (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[alice]

wrote:
> 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
>
> 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.

Chip, why kill the messenger if you dont like the message


> 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).
Where was this stated Chip.Why would D. Black Nixon post on a public
forum if she wanted this private?
>
> 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).
So Chip, are you the only one allowed an opinion?Where were posters on
RAS wrong about tax law?You need to read the update posted on the SSA
website Sept 7th.

>. 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.

Now you are contradicting yourself.
>
> 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"
I think "going along" is what got the SSA in trouble in the first
place.Dont be so self righteous about the other posters.The SSA
management has alot to answer for, and in the best interest of the
sport they should probably all resign. Your blind devotion to these
people is part of the problem.
A

[5Z]

alice wrote:
> Chip, why kill the messenger if you dont like the message

Because the messenger copied a message from a priveate area and placed
it in a public area.

> Where was this stated Chip.Why would D. Black Nixon post on a public
> forum if she wanted this private?

She posted a request to vist a private forum. Nothing wrong with that.
Though had the next post not disclosed this initial private info,
there would have been some non-SSA folks wondering about what's going
on. At that point I'm sure an SSA member would have obliged and
reposted the message here anyway.

> >. 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.
>
> Now you are contradicting yourself.

The Excom decided to initially notify the membership with an incomplete
set of facts. A few days later they followed up with more info.

What Chip is saying is that maybe the Excom should have put the info in
a public area in the first place, so the conspiracy theorists among us
would have less to argue about :(

-Tom

[Ian Johnston]

On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:10:27 UTC, wrote:

: 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.

I'm only a fascinated outsider (everyone slows for a good car crash)
but I wonder how much I would trust a committee which had missed the
disapperance half a million dollars to know the best thing to do.

Ian
--

[Vaughn Simon]

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:10:27 UTC, wrote:
>
> I'm only a fascinated outsider (everyone slows for a good car crash)
> but I wonder how much I would trust a committee which had missed the
> disapperance half a million dollars to know the best thing to do.

I am as apalled as anyone, but I have been in the position of the members
of the "committe" and the best they can do in their periodic meetings is ask
probing questions and evaluate whatever information they are given. They are
not auditors, so If they are not given good answers to their questions, or
otherwise fed bum information, there is little they can do to detect what others
conceal from them.

In other words, "Garbage in" leads to "garbage out".

We as members are in an even more remote position. Until there is an honest
investigation, conducted by qualified, uninvolved outsiders, we have no way of
knowing who knew what, who said what, who did what, and who (if anybody) stole
what.

Vaughn

[5-BG]

A couple of comments on your post
1. So far the problem has NOT been identified as "MISSING CASH" nor in the amount of 1/2 million. The problem, as currently stated by the board notes, is that payments totaling $200,000 to 300,000 were NOT made to proper govt agencies AND this non payment was covered up since 2003 by the cfo, with the knowledge of the ED by presenting false financial documents to the Board OF DIRECTORS. The Board made a conscious CHOICE to forego the annual audit required by the bylaws as a cost savings move in 2003. The Auditors did NOT NOTIFY the board of the problem even though they aware that reports were not being filed and that they were not preparing annual tax returns because of a lack of information from the ed and cfo.
The board has not yet charged that ANYONE actually stole the money.
2. Board members accept a RESPONSIBILITY when they volunteer. The chair has a somewhat greater responsibility to understand and to follow the governing bylaws. Status as a volunteer does NOT relieve one of the responsibility to understand and to enforce the bylaws. The initial decision to forgo the audit in 2003 was in direct conflict with the bylaws. I simply cannot imagine that during the discussion and prior to the vote on this action, someone on the board did not cite the bylaw requirement for the audit. This was an INTENTIONAL action by the board and the chair has admitted as much.
3. An HONEST INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY QUALIFIED OUTSIDERS is absolutely necessary. So far we have an investigation led by an attorney ( who??) that was hired by the board. It is quite clear that this attorney views THE BOARD, NOT THE ASSOCIATION, as his client. I say this after reading the follow-up note from the board posted Friday in which the board takes the position that, subsequent to the initial decision to knowingly ignore the bylaws, not having an audit was an act of OMISSION rather than COMMISSION. If ever I have seen the hand of a legal spin doctor at work, this is it. The attorney was probably shocked and appalled that the board would admit, in writing, to a knowing action that was in conflict with the governing bylaws and thus actionable on a personal basis. This note of clarification was a blatant attempt to contain and to minimize the legal damage to the members of the board. We can look forward to highly reviewed and carefully worded notes in the future.
As long as the attorney views his client as the board, I will not be confident that the full story is being told.
4. An HONEST investigation of the actual books simply cannot be presented by the firm that failed to inform the board that the problem existed and was not getting better, even after several years. I am NOT suggesting that they participated in any act of fraud or deception, but that they failed in their professional responsibility to notify the association ( board) that they had been unable to gain information sufficient to file reports in a timely manner even after repeated requests to the ED. The Chair has told us that audits were performed on an annual basis for many years per the bylaws by this firm. Are we to believe that the accountants were unaware of this requirement after having done audits for several years? Outside accountants and auditors exist as a check and balance to prevent this type of situation. Ours blew their responsibility big time. To the extent that they have E&O insurance, we may have recourse, especially IF outright theft of funds occurred.
In any event, we need a new set of auditors in order to get an impartial opinion.
5. I have written to the board and to the chair and asked the simple question " are funds in the special accounts that are apart from SSA operating funds intact or are they missing also?" This is a straightforward question that is easy to answer. The funds are either there ( in a bank account or investment account) or they are not. A couple of phone calls or a visit to the bank is all that it takes. A look at the latest monthly statement from the depository would also answer the question. This is NOT ROCKET SCIENCE, nor is it difficult. So far I have not had a reply, nor has the board addressed this question publicly.

What we do know is that we owe $200,000 to $300,000 in back payments ( potentially $500,000 with penalties) and have no cash to speak of in SSA operating accounts. If the funds in the special accounts are gone THE ENTIRE NATURE OF THE REORGANIZATION CHANGES. It is possible to recover from the requirement to come up with $200,000 to $500,000 by eliminating the magazine expenses for about a year and reducing expenditures to the bone. The government is normally willing to work out a payment plan if shown good intentions. HOWEVER, if the special funds are gone, I believe that the death of the SSA is upon us. The guts of the purpose of the organization will have been ripped out leaving a hollow shell.
In any event, the board owes us an immediate statement as to the status of these accounts.






"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message ...

"Ian Johnston" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 8 Sep 2006 18:10:27 UTC, wrote:
>
> I'm only a fascinated outsider (everyone slows for a good car crash)
> but I wonder how much I would trust a committee which had missed the
> disapperance half a million dollars to know the best thing to do.

I am as apalled as anyone, but I have been in the position of the members
of the "committe" and the best they can do in their periodic meetings is ask
probing questions and evaluate whatever information they are given. They are
not auditors, so If they are not given good answers to their questions, or
otherwise fed bum information, there is little they can do to detect what others
conceal from them.

In other words, "Garbage in" leads to "garbage out".

We as members are in an even more remote position. Until there is an honest
investigation, conducted by qualified, uninvolved outsiders, we have no way of
knowing who knew what, who said what, who did what, and who (if anybody) stole
what.

Vaughn

[Vaughn Simon]

5-BG wrote:
> It is possible to recover from the requirement to come up with $200,000 to $500,000 by eliminating the magazine expenses for about a year and reducing expenditures to the >bone.

Actually not. I guarantee you, if the magazine stops going out, the dues will stop coming in. You can't have one without the other. Soaring magazine is the only tangable benefit of membership for most of us members. Take away the magazine and there is not only little reason to continue sending in dues, but you cut off the membership from regular communications with their organization (out of sight, out of mind).

For all of the complaints, I think that Soaring is an amazing magazine (considering the resources of the SSA). If the SSA goes away, I hope at least the magazine remains as a commercial venture.

Vaughn

[5-BG]

Vaughn;
Perhaps your assessment re mag is right for many. Personally, the main tangible SSA benefit i receive is access to cut rate insurance through the group plan. In my case this is worth about $500 per year. I checked. The discussions on safety, the instructor's corner, and classifieds ( in that order) are my reads. But to each his own.. SUSPENSION of the mag for a year may lose some members, but i really do not see any other place to come up with a chunk of money that large. An e-mail newsletter could be a substitute during the reorganization.
IMHO the mag is not viable as a stand alone commercial venture. Since it eats up roughly 50% of dues each year to produce and distribute ( say $30 to $35 per member) that would be the MINIMUM breakeven price for a subscription ASSUMING all members subscribed. not going to happen at that price.
by the way, Access to reasonable insurance impacts EVERYONE WHO FLYS. Not just those of us who own personal planes. Renter's insurance, club insurance and FBO insurance for gliders is a must for everyone. I suppose that there are members who no longer fly, but i would guess that their numbers are few.
"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message ...
5-BG wrote:
> It is possible to recover from the requirement to come up with $200,000 to $500,000 by eliminating the magazine expenses for about a year and reducing expenditures to the >bone.

Actually not. I guarantee you, if the magazine stops going out, the dues will stop coming in. You can't have one without the other. Soaring magazine is the only tangable benefit of membership for most of us members. Take away the magazine and there is not only little reason to continue sending in dues, but you cut off the membership from regular communications with their organization (out of sight, out of mind).

For all of the complaints, I think that Soaring is an amazing magazine (considering the resources of the SSA). If the SSA goes away, I hope at least the magazine remains as a commercial venture.

Vaughn

[Marc Ramsey]

5-BG wrote:
> Vaughn;
> Perhaps your assessment re mag is right for many. Personally, the
> main tangible SSA benefit i receive is access to cut rate insurance
> through the group plan. In my case this is worth about $500 per year.

FWIW, I get USAIG glider insurance through PIK*West out here in
California, for many years it has nearly always cheaper than the SSA
group plan...

Marc

[Vaughn Simon]

5-BG wrote:
>Perhaps your assessment re mag is right for many. Personally, the main tangible SSA benefit i receive is access to cut rate insurance through the group plan.

First of all, I am not a glider owner. I would be interested to see the stats on glider ownership for the SSA membership. When I was an exclusive glider pilot, I priced both the SSA and other plans. For the last few years that I flew gliders exclusively, renter's insurance through SSA was, in fact, cheaper. But now life is not so simple, I also fly powered, so SSA insurance won't "cut it". I get my renter's insurance through AOPA (good for both powered and gliders), and I would bet money that I am one of many SSA members that does.

>by the way, Access to reasonable insurance impacts EVERYONE WHO FLYS.

True enough, but few people take such a selfless view that they would want to pay SSA dues exclusively to help SOMEONE ELSE get cheap insurance.

> I suppose that there are members who no longer fly, but i would guess that their numbers are few.

I am not so sure about that. I would be willing to bet that there are many dues-paying SSA members that are not glider-current. Since we no longer have a glider operation in my area, I happen to be one of them at present.

Vaughn




"5-BG" <5-bghatesspam @ fake.com> wrote in message ...
Vaughn;
Perhaps your assessment re mag is right for many. Personally, the main tangible SSA benefit i receive is access to cut rate insurance through the group plan. In my case this is worth about $500 per year. I checked. The discussions on safety, the instructor's corner, and classifieds ( in that order) are my reads. But to each his own.. SUSPENSION of the mag for a year may lose some members, but i really do not see any other place to come up with a chunk of money that large. An e-mail newsletter could be a substitute during the reorganization.
IMHO the mag is not viable as a stand alone commercial venture. Since it eats up roughly 50% of dues each year to produce and distribute ( say $30 to $35 per member) that would be the MINIMUM breakeven price for a subscription ASSUMING all members subscribed. not going to happen at that price.
by the way, Access to reasonable insurance impacts EVERYONE WHO FLYS. Not just those of us who own personal planes. Renter's insurance, club insurance and FBO insurance for gliders is a must for everyone. I suppose that there are members who no longer fly, but i would guess that their numbers are few.
"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message ...
5-BG wrote:
> It is possible to recover from the requirement to come up with $200,000 to $500,000 by eliminating the magazine expenses for about a year and reducing expenditures to the >bone.

Actually not. I guarantee you, if the magazine stops going out, the dues will stop coming in. You can't have one without the other. Soaring magazine is the only tangable benefit of membership for most of us members. Take away the magazine and there is not only little reason to continue sending in dues, but you cut off the membership from regular communications with their organization (out of sight, out of mind).

For all of the complaints, I think that Soaring is an amazing magazine (considering the resources of the SSA). If the SSA goes away, I hope at least the magazine remains as a commercial venture.

Vaughn

[Brian Glick]

Problem here Frank......I subscribed many times, and for some reason that no
one can figure out, I never get it. In this case, my director is nice enough
to forward it to me.


Brian
"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Text attached below:
>> >Just kidding! You know where to find it.
>>
>> 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
>> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
>
> All SSA members have been invited numerous times to subscribe to SSA
> eNews. The letter and update first arrived here by that means. Highly
> recommended. The SSA eNews also provides other useful and timely
> information. Once subscribed, it takes little effort to stay informed.
>
> Frank Whiteley
>

[Brian Glick]

Mark

You must know someone, AIG was much higher for my towplane, without going
through SSA group.

Brian
"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
> 5-BG wrote:
>> Vaughn;
>> Perhaps your assessment re mag is right for many. Personally, the main
>> tangible SSA benefit i receive is access to cut rate insurance through
>> the group plan. In my case this is worth about $500 per year.
>
> FWIW, I get USAIG glider insurance through PIK*West out here in
> California, for many years it has nearly always cheaper than the SSA group
> plan...
>
> Marc

[Frank Whiteley]

Brian,

In a word, Earthlink, if that's the e-mail you used to try and
subscribe. The spam controls for Earthlink require a positive input by
the sender, not something list servers do. I personally find the
Earthlink model a bit annoying, but suppose it's effective. We do our
spam filtering, accept and reject lists, on a SQL server on the user
end. Earthlink and some of the others have also used some rather
spurious RBL services, requring list and server admins to jump through
all sorts of hoops to whitelist non-spamming domains, tailor
reverse-lookup replies for static IP assignments, and so on. Depending
on how the list server works and how challenges and errors are sent to
the list admins, you may have no chance of getting on some lists with
Earthlink due to the challenge/reply door. A Yahoo mail or Google
Gmail account is often a good work around, though you seem to have
found another.

Frank Whiteley

Brian Glick wrote:
> Problem here Frank......I subscribed many times, and for some reason that no
> one can figure out, I never get it. In this case, my director is nice enough
> to forward it to me.
>
>
> Brian
> "Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> >
> > T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Text attached below:
> >> >Just kidding! You know where to find it.
> >>
> >> 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
> >> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
> >
> > All SSA members have been invited numerous times to subscribe to SSA
> > eNews. The letter and update first arrived here by that means. Highly
> > recommended. The SSA eNews also provides other useful and timely
> > information. Once subscribed, it takes little effort to stay informed.
> >
> > Frank Whiteley
> >