Could Be Worse - SSA

[Shawn Curry]

From the SSA e-news service, I assume this it's on the member web site too:

"State of New Mexico authorities have already informed us that no
interest or penalties will be imposed. We are working diligently with
the IRS to mitigate federal penalties and interest."

Also, it sounds like the Society has endowed funds that may be able to
pull its (our) ass out of the fire -this time- at the cost of the
endowment and, no doubt, incurring the ire of those who've funded it.

Shawn

[Mike Schumann]

The news also included a comment about referring the mater to the SSA's
attorneys and the Hobbs police dept, with no further details. It would have
been nice if they had shared more information on what was going on.

Mike Schumann

"Shawn Curry" <scurryfifenynteam@comcastdotnet> wrote in message
. ..
> From the SSA e-news service, I assume this it's on the member web site
> too:
>
> "State of New Mexico authorities have already informed us that no interest
> or penalties will be imposed. We are working diligently with the IRS to
> mitigate federal penalties and interest."
>
> Also, it sounds like the Society has endowed funds that may be able to
> pull its (our) ass out of the fire -this time- at the cost of the
> endowment and, no doubt, incurring the ire of those who've funded it.
>
> Shawn

[Jim Vincent]

It seems to me from the latest letter that most of the effort is on focusing
the blame on the CFAO instead of the BoD. IMO, the core fault is on the
Board for not implementing the audits they were required to do, as quoted
here from a letter:
"Over the ensuing years, the Board decided not to spend funds on audits,
instead allocating money on other tasks felt necessary to grow the Society."

Therein is the core problem. Had they done the audit, this would not have
happened.


"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> The news also included a comment about referring the mater to the SSA's
> attorneys and the Hobbs police dept, with no further details. It would
> have been nice if they had shared more information on what was going on.
>
> Mike Schumann
>
> "Shawn Curry" <scurryfifenynteam@comcastdotnet> wrote in message
> . ..
>> From the SSA e-news service, I assume this it's on the member web site
>> too:
>>
>> "State of New Mexico authorities have already informed us that no
>> interest or penalties will be imposed. We are working diligently with
>> the IRS to mitigate federal penalties and interest."
>>
>> Also, it sounds like the Society has endowed funds that may be able to
>> pull its (our) ass out of the fire -this time- at the cost of the
>> endowment and, no doubt, incurring the ire of those who've funded it.
>>
>> Shawn
>
>

[Pat Russell[_1_]]

>...It would have
>been nice if they had shared more information on what was going on.
>

"It would have been NICE," you say?

The SSA leadership is not trying to be nice. They are trying to do
the right thing. They are working very hard trying to solve this
problem. They are taking financial and legal advice from experts.
They have your interests at heart.

If they had "shared more information on what was going on" earlier, it
probably would have made the problem worse. And knowing this, they
decided not to entertain you with sensitive news. They are smart
people. They are working for you.

They are motivated by their love of the sport and their sense of
responsibility. Their tangible reward for this work is zero.

Each week, after working on the real problem, and at a time when I'm
sure they'd like to take a small break, the Executive Committee
composes and publishes a remarkably complete and carefully worded
update for the membership. They aren't doing it to be nice; they are
doing it to keep you informed. They think you deserve it. I'm not so
sure.

Quit your sniping.

-Pat

[Thomas Knauff]

The following is a copy of a recent newsletter I sent out to subscribers:

The SSA problems are going to be very expensive. Not only for the
organization, but the SSA Directors who are volunteers.

Phone bills and travel expenses will be enormous and most have full time
jobs as well as families. Back when I was a director, it cost me about
$3,000 each year for the privilege of serving the members. Those who hold
leadership positions within the society spend much more each year.

Each of us needs to consider helping our local directors with financial
support during this present crisis.

Tom Knauff

www.eglider.org

[5-BG]

For the sake of this discussion, I will acknowledge your basic premis that the board is acting in WHAT THEY perceive to be our best interests.
that said, they are, imho, compounding a bad situation by creating THE APPEARANCE of covering their collective asses. The update news note in which the attorney obviously tried to deflect responsibility by saying that after the first year the audit was never even discussed and thus the error was one of OMMISSION rather than COMMISSION, was a clear statement that the attorney is working hard to save the directors from responsibility.
further, there has been NO MENTION whatsoever, about the professional responsibility of the accountants. NO MENTION of hitting their E&O policy for compensation. What has happened is that the board actually used these guys to file the back reports and I think to conduct the forensic investigation. How can you possibly go after a firm for professional malpractice if you continue to employee said firm???
Finally, I do not understand why the ED is still around. nor the assistant cfo. ..
The APPEARANCE is beginning to develop that the board is trying to isolate the assignment of fault and responsibility to the cfo. While he appears to be a truely bad guy, he was able to do whatever it was that he did because of inattention and overt actions by the board to their basic job, compounded by professionally poor work by the accountants.

A credible resolution to the mess requires the appointment of an independent master who reports to the members through the board and is truely independent.
point by point now
1. They are taking advice from "experts who have agendas that are perhaps in conflict with the membership
2. Are they also working to save themselves from potential personal liability while seking to represent the ssa?
3. Telling someone to "quite your sniping" when they raise legitimate issues is bull****. We trusted these individuals to supervise the operation and they failed to do so. Both the accountants as well as the board. It is NOT SNIPING to raise the issues of real responsibility.

4. Reading between the lines of the last note, it appears as if the board made a decision to somehow "borrow" money out of special funds to cover the immediate cash requirement. My question becomes which fund did they borrow from and under what terms? Further, i wonder if they actually had the right to divert such funds.. either under te bylaws of the ssa and/or under the endowment terms? Another poster said that contributors to an endowment that is raided might be a bit miffed.. Did the board's hole just get dug a bit deeper???





"Pat Russell" > wrote in message ...

>...It would have
>been nice if they had shared more information on what was going on.
>

"It would have been NICE," you say?

The SSA leadership is not trying to be nice. They are trying to do
the right thing. They are working very hard trying to solve this
problem. They are taking financial and legal advice from experts.
They have your interests at heart.

If they had "shared more information on what was going on" earlier, it
probably would have made the problem worse. And knowing this, they
decided not to entertain you with sensitive news. They are smart
people. They are working for you.

They are motivated by their love of the sport and their sense of
responsibility. Their tangible reward for this work is zero.

Each week, after working on the real problem, and at a time when I'm
sure they'd like to take a small break, the Executive Committee
composes and publishes a remarkably complete and carefully worded
update for the membership. They aren't doing it to be nice; they are
doing it to keep you informed. They think you deserve it. I'm not so
sure.

Quit your sniping.

-Pat

[BB]

5-BG wrote:
> For the sake of this discussion, I will acknowledge your basic premis that the board is acting in WHAT THEY perceive to be our best interests..... (Long criticism of the board follows).

>From the september 7 update on www.ssa.org: "the Executive Committee is
actively pursuing several SSA members with financial experience, but
who have never been part of Society leadership, to oversee all of its
activities as we attempt to bring these problems to the best resolution
possible, and protect the Society in the future. " It sounds like you
are an ideal candidate to volunteer for this effort. I'm sure it will
take no more than a few hundred hours of your time, plus fun-filled
trips to Hobbs and other meetings. Email Diane Nixon or your regional
director and volunteer.

If you think the board is a bunch of nincompoops, here's another
suggestion from the SSA website: "SSA Regional Directors, Call for
Nominations. This is the offical call for nominations for the upcoming
election of your SSA Directors representing Regions 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
11 and 12." Step up and do it right. It's likely that there will be
many more opportunities to serve on the board in the near future, given
how fun it is for the current occupants. r.a.s. critics ought to be
prime targets...I mean candidates.. to stand for election. Too bad
your email is anonymous so we can't nominate you right away.

Let's not forget this board is a group of dedicated volunteers, elected
by us, the members. It's not some secret society. If you think they are
not doing a good job, there is only one answer: volunteer to help them,
or to serve and do it better yourself.

John Cochrane BB

[[email protected]]

Thank you John for your, on the point , comments.
Those that have all the answers better be on the board or volunteering
right now so they can point fingers with authority.
If you are not holding any of these jobs them please do run for a
board position and volunteer for one of the committees. I think Tom
Knauff indicated that it will only cost you about $3,000 plus many
hours of your time to do this volunteer work. Yes, the BD did make
some mistakes in judgement and put their trust in hired staff and tried
to manage from a distance, but they did this with good intentions. The
Endowment fund has been borrowed from before and handles these loans
like any other investment. If SSA members do not continue to renew and
new members join then this is a threat to the repayment of these loans.
We need the SSA for a number of reasons and now is the time for those
who have skills important to MANAGING this organization to step up and
offer your time and skills. Yes, I have done so through my Director.

Tom
Idaho
BB wrote:
> 5-BG wrote:
> > For the sake of this discussion, I will acknowledge your basic premis that the board is acting in WHAT THEY perceive to be our best interests..... (Long criticism of the board follows).
>
> >From the september 7 update on www.ssa.org: "the Executive Committee is
> actively pursuing several SSA members with financial experience, but
> who have never been part of Society leadership, to oversee all of its
> activities as we attempt to bring these problems to the best resolution
> possible, and protect the Society in the future. " It sounds like you
> are an ideal candidate to volunteer for this effort. I'm sure it will
> take no more than a few hundred hours of your time, plus fun-filled
> trips to Hobbs and other meetings. Email Diane Nixon or your regional
> director and volunteer.
>
> If you think the board is a bunch of nincompoops, here's another
> suggestion from the SSA website: "SSA Regional Directors, Call for
> Nominations. This is the offical call for nominations for the upcoming
> election of your SSA Directors representing Regions 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
> 11 and 12." Step up and do it right. It's likely that there will be
> many more opportunities to serve on the board in the near future, given
> how fun it is for the current occupants. r.a.s. critics ought to be
> prime targets...I mean candidates.. to stand for election. Too bad
> your email is anonymous so we can't nominate you right away.
>
> Let's not forget this board is a group of dedicated volunteers, elected
> by us, the members. It's not some secret society. If you think they are
> not doing a good job, there is only one answer: volunteer to help them,
> or to serve and do it better yourself.
>
> John Cochrane BB

[Jay]

Hear, hear John. Personally I think you folks are doing an exemplary
job in some pretty ugly circumstances. Speaking for myself - thank you
all.

For those others on r.a.s. (are you listening/reading 5-BG?) endless
speculation on something you know nothing about is pointless and
counterproductive. Questions as to why the ED is still there and the
CFO is not, whether the accounting firms insurance should pay or who
should hang are all based on your speculation and not on any facts
whatsoever. The boards decisions to date have been based on what they
knew then or know now. Facts, not supposition. If they have not yet
chosen (or for that matter, never choose) to share those facts with you
or the general membership, that is their decision to make - not yours.
It's what we elected them for and also what they can be replaced for if
the membership eventually decides that the decisions that were made
were inappropriate.

In the mean time as was pointed out, nominations for Regional Director
are open. Step up or shut up pal - the sniping isn't needed at a time
like this.

John - to you and the rest of the excom again, my thanks.

Jay

[Vaughn Simon]

"Jim Vincent" > wrote in message
. ..
> It seems to me from the latest letter that most of the effort is on focusing
> the blame on the CFAO instead of the BoD. IMO, the core fault is on the Board
> for not implementing the audits they were required to do, as quoted here from
> a letter:

"There but by the grace of God, go I." Had I been on the BoD, given the
same information, knowledge and assumptions as the others on the board, and not
armed with the "rear view vision" that the group here at ras now is blessed
with, I might well have voted right along with them. I think the board honestly
felt at the time that skipping the audits was a reasonable risk, and now the
assumption is that they realize that they were wrong.

I thank the board for their service and hope they can get us out of this
mess.

I also respectfully look forward to a rational explanation of why our
professional ED was not on top of this a year ago. I have not yet heard even
the beginnings of one.

Vaughn

[Frank[_3_]]

> If you think the board is a bunch of nincompoops, here's another
> suggestion from the SSA website: "SSA Regional Directors, Call for
> Nominations. This is the offical call for nominations for the upcoming
> election of your SSA Directors representing Regions 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10,
> 11 and 12." Step up and do it right. It's likely that there will be
> many more opportunities to serve on the board in the near future, given
> how fun it is for the current occupants. r.a.s. critics ought to be
> prime targets...I mean candidates.. to stand for election. Too bad
> your email is anonymous so we can't nominate you right away.

John,
For your info the nomination window closed a few months ago.I think
that if members knew the SSA was short of help there would be alot more
volunteers (Myself included).

> Let's not forget this board is a group of dedicated volunteers, elected
> by us, the members. It's not some secret society.

This one made me laugh because of all the name calling that took place
on RAS a week ago because some member made the letter public.Almost
made it seem like it was a secret society.What I cant understand is why
all the name calling came from the people who support the current
management.
Also, is the ED not a paid position?



> John Cochrane BB

[alice]

Jay wrote:
> Hear, hear John. Personally I think you folks are doing an exemplary
> job in some pretty ugly circumstances. Speaking for myself - thank you
> all.
>
> For those others on r.a.s. (are you listening/reading 5-BG?) endless
> speculation on something you know nothing about is pointless and
> counterproductive. Questions as to why the ED is still there and the
> CFO is not, whether the accounting firms insurance should pay or who
> should hang are all based on your speculation and not on any facts
> whatsoever. The boards decisions to date have been based on what they
> knew then or know now. Facts, not supposition. If they have not yet
> chosen (or for that matter, never choose) to share those facts with you
> or the general membership, that is their decision to make - not yours.
> It's what we elected them for and also what they can be replaced for if
> the membership eventually decides that the decisions that were made
> were inappropriate.


O.K, this is for Jay and Vaughn. I enjoy this sport as much as the next
pilot but you have to understand that we now have 2 pretty serious
financial screw ups in the last few years.Some of the people at SSA
have been involved in BOTH of these occurances.I kinda would like to
know how my dues $$$ is being spent.Why even have bylaws? If the Board
can get SSA out of this mess, whats to keep it from happening again?I
think that the best thing for the sport is a strong national
organization were this sort of thing doesnt happen repeatedly.
A

[5-BG]

Vaughn wrote "I think the board honestly
felt at the time that skipping the audits was a reasonable risk, and now the
assumption is that they realize that they were wrong."

There are several points this statement brings up;
1. The board had no RIGHT under the bylaws to take that "reasonable risk" . They did it KNOWINGLY.
there was nothing HONEST about the decision. they knowingly chose to ignore the charter that they were elected to uphold as that is the board function.
2. A PIC of an aircraft may HONESTLY feel that he can ignore FARS when they don't suit his immediate needs and HONESTLY believe that he is not placing himself or his passangers in harms way. But in so doing he is exposing himself to legal as well as financial jeprody should something unexpected go wrong. We, as pilots do not have the option of rewriting or disregarding regulations at our pleasure. Neither did the board.
3. Acting as an unpaid volunteer does NOT give anyone a free pass when harm is done as the result of taking a "reasonable risk" that was in fact in direct violation of bylaws or an FAR.
This whole discussion brings up the need to reorganize the structure of the ssa. Having a large board of volunteers scattered all over the country essentially sets up the situation whereby the executive board makes the decisions and presents information to the rest for approval. So now we have a large group of board members who screwed up by not questioning the core board..

how about reducing the number of board members to 3 or maybe 4 and holding their feet to the fire with annual elections. How about the regional directors being reclassified as regional advisors whose purpose in life is to advise the board of broad policy interests of their region. The current situation makes it clear that a large board of volunteers has a difficult time dealing with the nitty gritty of administrative matters.
5bg


"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message ...

"Jim Vincent" > wrote in message
. ..
> It seems to me from the latest letter that most of the effort is on focusing
> the blame on the CFAO instead of the BoD. IMO, the core fault is on the Board
> for not implementing the audits they were required to do, as quoted here from
> a letter:

"There but by the grace of God, go I." Had I been on the BoD, given the
same information, knowledge and assumptions as the others on the board, and not
armed with the "rear view vision" that the group here at ras now is blessed
with, I might well have voted right along with them. I think the board honestly
felt at the time that skipping the audits was a reasonable risk, and now the
assumption is that they realize that they were wrong.

I thank the board for their service and hope they can get us out of this
mess.

I also respectfully look forward to a rational explanation of why our
professional ED was not on top of this a year ago. I have not yet heard even
the beginnings of one.

Vaughn

[Michael McNulty]

"Jay" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Hear, hear John. Personally I think you folks are doing an exemplary
> job in some pretty ugly circumstances. Speaking for myself - thank you
> all.
>
> For those others on r.a.s. (are you listening/reading 5-BG?) endless
> speculation on something you know nothing about is pointless and
> counterproductive. Questions as to why the ED is still there and the
> CFO is not, whether the accounting firms insurance should pay or who
> should hang are all based on your speculation and not on any facts
> whatsoever.


Quote from the SSA's 9/7/2006 information release:
"In this case, the ED was aware of the failure to file for much of the time
he was employed by the SSA (approximately three years). He neither secured
their filing, nor notified the Board of Directors (including the Treasurer)
of the delinquency until July 31, 2006."

So, based on this fact, not "specualtion", why is the ED still employed by
the SSA?

For the record, I do sincerely appreciate the efforts of the SSA directors
to keep the membership informed. The seem to have taken the lessons from
the last scandal (the former ED's credit card abuses and the efforts of some
directors to cover up them up) to heart.

[Graeme Cant]

5-BG wrote:
......snip
> 2. Are they also working to save themselves from potential personal
> liability while seking to represent the ssa?

I should bloody well hope so! Given that they did their work for
NOTHING, I HOPE they're working to ensure they don't get hit for any
liability. If they have some time left over to work for the SSA at the
same time, it would be more than you deserve!

You seem to think that the Board members would be doing something wrong
if they didn't let themselves be exposed not only to abuse and
denigration from people like you but should also expose themselves and
their families to penury and bankruptcy.

Bull**** (Your term). They should ensure that they come out of this
free from any financial liability beyond that shared by all SSA members.

GC

[alice]

Pat Russell wrote:
>
> The SSA leadership is not trying to be nice.

No one said they WERE trying to be nice.Please dont take others posts
out of context.

> They have your interests at heart.

You dont know this for sure.It would be prudent to wait until an
investigation is complete before making such a statement.
>
> If they had "shared more information on what was going on" earlier, it
> probably would have made the problem worse.

Pat, if they had shared the fact that audits were NOT being conducted 3
years ago (Right after the last incedent), this probably would not have
happened.Think about what you are saying.More information is better,
not worse.



> Each week, after working on the real problem, and at a time when I'm
> sure they'd like to take a small break, the Executive Committee
> composes and publishes a remarkably complete and carefully worded
> update for the membership. They aren't doing it to be nice; they are
> doing it to keep you informed. They think you deserve it. I'm not so
> sure.

What do we deserve Pat?To send 65 bucks, not to mention contest fees
and bussiness dues into some black hole where we get unaudited results
every year?

>
> Quit your sniping.
>
> -Pat

[Roger Worden]

> it appears as if the board made a decision to somehow "borrow" money out
of special funds to cover the immediate cash requirement. My question
becomes which fund did they borrow from and under what terms? Further, i
wonder if they actually had the right to divert such funds.. either under
te bylaws of the ssa and/or under the endowment terms?

The Foundation is a separate organization with a separate Board. The SSA had
to ask the Foundation if it could borrow some funds. The Foundation board
decides what funds can be loaned and what funds need to stay committed to
other purposes.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> I also respectfully look forward to a rational explanation of why our
> professional ED was not on top of this a year ago. I have not yet heard even
> the beginnings of one.

Just for the record, I am STILL respectfully looking forward to a rational
explanation of why our professional ED was not on top of this a year ago. I
don't understand why we are not hearing a general clamor for such an
explanation.

Vaughn


>
> Vaughn
>

[Frank Whiteley]

Perhaps we'll have more after the Sep 30th BOD meeting.

Frank Whiteley

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > I also respectfully look forward to a rational explanation of why our
> > professional ED was not on top of this a year ago. I have not yet heard even
> > the beginnings of one.
>
> Just for the record, I am STILL respectfully looking forward to a rational
> explanation of why our professional ED was not on top of this a year ago. I
> don't understand why we are not hearing a general clamor for such an
> explanation.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
> >
> > Vaughn
> >

[Vaughn Simon]

"Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Perhaps we'll have more after the Sep 30th BOD meeting.

The sooner the better. I don't know about the others, but I will not be
waiting quietly.

This is very BASIC stuff that any professional manager should have had his
finger on.

Vaughn

[Frank Whiteley]

Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
> > Perhaps we'll have more after the Sep 30th BOD meeting.
>
> The sooner the better. I don't know about the others, but I will not be
> waiting quietly.
>
> This is very BASIC stuff that any professional manager should have had his
> finger on.
>
> Vaughn
Fair comment, but to this point anything communicated has come from the
EXCOMM, rather than the full BOD. Some discussion and decision making
may be deferred until the full BOD convenes. Whether full discovery
will be completed by Sep 30th, remains to be seen.

Frank

[Brian Glick]

Vaghn

This is exactly why the ED is out!!!! He fumbled the ball, and more than a
few people were unhappy about it.

Brian

"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Frank Whiteley" > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>> Perhaps we'll have more after the Sep 30th BOD meeting.
>
> The sooner the better. I don't know about the others, but I will not
> be waiting quietly.
>
> This is very BASIC stuff that any professional manager should have had
> his finger on.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>