The Audit, the board, the by-laws

[Frank Reid[_1_]]

There is still some confusion on the subject of the
audit, or lack thereof, and the board. The answer
given by the Excom to the members in their first statement
was not correct. That is 'the board decided .....'.
Then the attempted clarification was also not clear.
So let me state it very clearly for all.

The SSA Board of Directors never, I repeat never, discussed
the issue of 'not doing an audit'. The SSA Board of
Directors never, I repeat never, decided (or voted
on the option) of 'not doing an audit'. I hope that
is clear for all.

So what happened? The Board simply did not think about
nor discuss an audit after 2003. Stupid? Yes! Deliberately
breaking the by-laws? No! Thus, the statement from
the excom concerning 'omission versus comission'.

Does the above excuse the Board's lack of oversight
in not assuring that the by-laws were being followed
i.e. that an audit was taking place every year. No.
But it was an oversight by the Board. Nothing more,
nothing less.

Those are the facts.

Frank Reid

[[email protected]]

Frank Reid wrote:
> There is still some confusion on the subject of the
> audit, or lack thereof, and the board. The answer
> given by the Excom to the members in their first statement
> was not correct. That is 'the board decided .....'.
> Then the attempted clarification was also not clear.
> So let me state it very clearly for all.
>
> The SSA Board of Directors never, I repeat never, discussed
> the issue of 'not doing an audit'. The SSA Board of
> Directors never, I repeat never, decided (or voted
> on the option) of 'not doing an audit'. I hope that
> is clear for all.
>
> So what happened? The Board simply did not think about
> nor discuss an audit after 2003. Stupid? Yes! Deliberately
> breaking the by-laws? No! Thus, the statement from
> the excom concerning 'omission versus comission'.
>
> Does the above excuse the Board's lack of oversight
> in not assuring that the by-laws were being followed
> i.e. that an audit was taking place every year. No.
> But it was an oversight by the Board. Nothing more,
> nothing less.
>
> Those are the facts.
>
> Frank Reid
What's an Excom?

[snoop]

Frank,
You are 100% correct. But I would counter with "coulda, shoulda,
wouldve"! This is one of those "dead right" scenarios. For instance,
"He/she never wouldve run out of gas", or "he/she never wouldve run
into that mountain", he/she was an excellent pilot/board member. Yep,
right, now let's look at all the facts.

Companies select supposed high level individuals to make sure all these
bases are covered, and ask the devils advocate questions. And when they
don't, and time goes by and a problem raises it's head, well I guess
that's where the "jury of our peers" will take over, and they will
decide if it was just an "oversight". All the fancy, technical, "the
minutes will show" stuff is out the window.

It's who's sitting in the jury box, and how they feel about people who
make mistakes with other peoples lives, money and family. Serious, but
interesting stuff, the kind of stuff that dad expressed with "don't do
anything that you don't want to have to explain".

"Nothing more, nothing less".

Cheers,
snoop

[Bob]

wrote:

> What's an Excom?

Executive committee.....

[alice]

Frank Reid wrote:
> There is still some confusion on the subject of the
> audit, or lack thereof, and the board. The answer
> given by the Excom to the members in their first statement
> was not correct. > Then the attempted clarification was also not clear.
> So let me state it very clearly for all.

Frank, here we go again.There has been endless speculation on R.A.S.
about what the EXCOM did and what their motivation was, criminal
intent, etc. etc..How do you know exactly what the boards motivation
was?

>
> The SSA Board of Directors never, I repeat never, discussed
> the issue of 'not doing an audit'. The SSA Board of
> Directors never, I repeat never, decided (or voted
> on the option) of 'not doing an audit'. I hope that
> is clear for all.

Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.If you
look at the Excom update dated 9-7-06 you cant help but notice that the
ED was well aware of the fact that payroll taxes had not been paid for
3 years.Tell us Frank, what was his motivation?
I have been communicating with my regional director who has informed me
that he is assembling a committee (The members of which have not been
involved with the SSA during the past two scandals) to investigate what
happened.With all due respect Frank, you might want to save your
speculation until this committee's investigation is complete.
>
> So what happened? The Board simply did not think about
> nor discuss an audit after 2003. Stupid? Yes! Deliberately
> breaking the by-laws? No! Thus, the statement from
> the excom concerning 'omission versus comission'.

More speculation here.Lets wait until the investigation is complete.
>
> Does the above excuse the Board's lack of oversight
> in not assuring that the by-laws were being followed
> i.e. that an audit was taking place every year. No.
> But it was an oversight by the Board. Nothing more,
> nothing less.

"The hatch just blew"

> Those are the facts.
>
> Frank Reid

[Frank Reid]

snoop wrote:
> Frank,
> You are 100% correct. But I would counter with "coulda, shoulda,
> wouldve"! This is one of those "dead right" scenarios. For instance,
> "He/she never wouldve run out of gas", or "he/she never wouldve run
> into that mountain", he/she was an excellent pilot/board member. Yep,
> right, now let's look at all the facts.


Snoop,

I do not understand your comments at all. In my comments I said the
board did "run out of gas", and "did run into that mountain". I simply
pointed out that they did not deliberately do so by voting to "run out
of gas" and by voting to "ignore the by-laws. Additionally I made no
comment whatsoever about any board members being an excellent
pilots/board members.

Are you suggesting that those who rune out of gas do so deliberately?
That they conspire to run into the mountain?
>
> Companies select supposed high level individuals to make sure all these
> bases are covered, and ask the devils advocate questions. And when they
> don't, and time goes by and a problem raises it's head, well I guess
> that's where the "jury of our peers" will take over, and they will
> decide if it was just an "oversight". All the fancy, technical, "the
> minutes will show" stuff is out the window.

You, the SSA members select the board members.

To suggest that the volunteer SSA Board members did anything other than
make an honest error (be it a stupid one) is to imply some type of
conspiracy theory. I know the vast majority of the board members and
all of the current excom members. While I have certainly had my
disagreements with some of them I believe it is absolutely absurd to
think that any one of them or any group of them has anything other than
the best interests of the SSA in their decisions on the board. I take
great offense with your statement "... they will decide if it was just
an oversight".

>
> It's who's sitting in the jury box, and how they feel about people who
> make mistakes with other peoples lives, money and family. Serious, but
> interesting stuff, the kind of stuff that dad expressed with "don't do
> anything that you don't want to have to explain".

As for judging what the penality should be for a mistake by the board,
I was not discussing that issue at all. It is something you decided to
throw into the mix. Certainly there are situations where an simple
mistake has some bad legal consequences. I hope that no member of the
board due to an honest mistake has to experience that. I also hope
that none of you here on the ras have to experinece that from making
veiled accusations as to the integrety, honesty and the intentions of
the members of the SSA Board.

You would indeed be wise to adhear to your dad's advise, "don't do (or
say) anything that you don't want to have to explain".

Regards,

Frank Reid

>
> "Nothing more, nothing less".
>
> Cheers,
> snoop

[Frank Reid]

alice wrote:
> Frank, here we go again.There has been endless speculation on R.A.S.
> about what the EXCOM did and what their motivation was, criminal
> intent, etc. etc..How do you know exactly what the boards motivation
> was?

I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
motivation was.

I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
members and to the entire current excom.
Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
decision of any kind about an audit.

> >
> > The SSA Board of Directors never, I repeat never, discussed
> > the issue of 'not doing an audit'. The SSA Board of
> > Directors never, I repeat never, decided (or voted
> > on the option) of 'not doing an audit'. I hope that
> > is clear for all.
>
> Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.

This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?

If you
> look at the Excom update dated 9-7-06 you cant help but notice that the
> ED was well aware of the fact that payroll taxes had not been paid for
> 3 years.Tell us Frank, what was his motivation?

As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
this in as "smoke"?


> I have been communicating with my regional director who has informed me
> that he is assembling a committee (The members of which have not been
> involved with the SSA during the past two scandals) to investigate what
> happened.With all due respect Frank, you might want to save your
> speculation until this committee's investigation is complete.

With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.

Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
speculating just a little on your own?

Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
without absolute proof of your acccusations.

Regards,

Frank Reid


> >
> > So what happened? The Board simply did not think about
> > nor discuss an audit after 2003. Stupid? Yes! Deliberately
> > breaking the by-laws? No! Thus, the statement from
> > the excom concerning 'omission versus comission'.
>
> More speculation here.Lets wait until the investigation is complete.
> >
> > Does the above excuse the Board's lack of oversight
> > in not assuring that the by-laws were being followed
> > i.e. that an audit was taking place every year. No.
> > But it was an oversight by the Board. Nothing more,
> > nothing less.
>
> "The hatch just blew"
>
> > Those are the facts.
> >
> > Frank Reid

[5-BG]

A direct quote from 9/7 note to members from board "
Why has an audit (or outside financial review) not been done since 2002?

The SSA hired its first CFAO during 2002. In retrospect, this may have led to a false sense of security on the part of the Board. 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. In retrospect, this was obviously "penny wise, and pound foolish."

A direct quote from 9/8 update "

Did the Board decide not to do audits?

After the September, 2003 Board meeting, neither the Board nor Executive Committee ever discussed audits at all. While this was clearly an error, it was one of omission, not commission. "



How can the board "DECIDE" not to spend funds without discussion. ???

the second note IMPLIES that a decision was taken at the 2003 meeting and then carried forward without further discussion into following years.



I have been a member of several boards of rather large companies, some as an inside member due to my equity position and on some as an outside director. IN THE REAL WORLD, many decisions are taken upon recommendation of the specific sub comittee ( on maters of executive compensation and options for example) WITHOUT DISCUSSION. There are currently several hundred very large companies ( and their boards) under fire for questionable and sometimes downright illigal option pricing plans. The companies are in trouble, the management is in trouble and the boards are in serious legal trouble. No where in the minutes will you find a discussion of backdating stock options and a board discussion of the legality of it. Class action lawsuits are flying and the boards are named individually.

The MINUTES of board meetings are normally transcribed and edited. The real power edits the minutes and then passes around drafts to the members for comment. During the following meeting the normal first order of business is to approve the minutes of the last meeting which may or may NOT represent all that was discussed.

then there is the issue of executive sessions. As a significant shareholder/director and inside board member, I demand to be included in any executive session. it is not uncommon to be EXCLUDED from executive sessions of sub board committees as an outside director.

my point is that your read of the minutes conflicts with the two statements issued. The issue was discussed at least once according to the first statement. "THE BOARD DECIDED>>>>>" Does that not fit your dictionary definition??? IN FACT the first note admits that they DECIDED to forego the audit to save money. There are two parts to that. 1. their motivation was noble. 2. they made a conscious decision.



Where to from here is the real question. T

he first note says "The long answer is that our hired management failed us, and although all volunteer Directors were well meaning, they all share in the blame. The root cause of leadership's failure to uncover the problem until now was the complete absence of outside financial reviews or audits since 2002. Between 2003 and the present, the SSA has had one Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, one Executive Director, two Directors who served as Treasurers, three Directors who were Chairmen of the Board, ten Directors who served as Vice Chairmen (making up the Executive Committees) and forty-three different Directors. To varying degrees and for various reasons, we have all let the SSA membership down."

and goes on to say "

Once the Society emerges from this awful situation, our intent is to tender resignations in respect of our leadership positions, hoping that new, qualified individuals will assume these roles."

I believe that a dysfunctional system has been in place which has placed volunteer board members at risk. It seems to me as if the board became a pawn of the professional staff and that the board has acknowledged as much.

My answer to the real question is to cut the size of the board to 4. have the regional directors, all of whom are well meaning individuals who are in an unfortunate position right now, become policy advisors with a page or two dedicated in each magizine to their discussion of issues brought to the board's attention on the behalf of the members. Perhaps a review of and change to the bylaws re term of office and possible recall needs to be considered as part of the process of rebuilding.

Pilots who make a hard landing , or worse, because they did not flare properly normally do not CHOOSE to hurt themselves, their passangers and their equipment, BUT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE.. Not choosing to do something is actually a choice NOT TO TAKE THAT ACTION.

Are we to understand that the two directors who served as treasurers and the ED were unaware that an audit was required???








"Frank Reid" > wrote in message oups.com...

alice wrote:
> Frank, here we go again.There has been endless speculation on R.A.S.
> about what the EXCOM did and what their motivation was, criminal
> intent, etc. etc..How do you know exactly what the boards motivation
> was?

I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
motivation was.

I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
members and to the entire current excom.
Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
decision of any kind about an audit.

> >
> > The SSA Board of Directors never, I repeat never, discussed
> > the issue of 'not doing an audit'. The SSA Board of
> > Directors never, I repeat never, decided (or voted
> > on the option) of 'not doing an audit'. I hope that
> > is clear for all.
>
> Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.

This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?

If you
> look at the Excom update dated 9-7-06 you cant help but notice that the
> ED was well aware of the fact that payroll taxes had not been paid for
> 3 years.Tell us Frank, what was his motivation?

As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
this in as "smoke"?


> I have been communicating with my regional director who has informed me
> that he is assembling a committee (The members of which have not been
> involved with the SSA during the past two scandals) to investigate what
> happened.With all due respect Frank, you might want to save your
> speculation until this committee's investigation is complete.

With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.

Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
speculating just a little on your own?

Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
without absolute proof of your acccusations.

Regards,

Frank Reid


> >
> > So what happened? The Board simply did not think about
> > nor discuss an audit after 2003. Stupid? Yes! Deliberately
> > breaking the by-laws? No! Thus, the statement from
> > the excom concerning 'omission versus comission'.
>
> More speculation here.Lets wait until the investigation is complete.
> >
> > Does the above excuse the Board's lack of oversight
> > in not assuring that the by-laws were being followed
> > i.e. that an audit was taking place every year. No.
> > But it was an oversight by the Board. Nothing more,
> > nothing less.
>
> "The hatch just blew"
>
> > Those are the facts.
> >
> > Frank Reid

[alice]

Frank Reid wrote:

> Snoop,
>
> I do not understand your comments at all. In my comments I said the
> board did "run out of gas", and "did run into that mountain". I simply
> pointed out that they did not deliberately do so by voting to "run out
> of gas" and by voting to "ignore the by-laws. Additionally I made no
> comment whatsoever about any board members being an excellent
> pilots/board members.
>
> Are you suggesting that those who rune out of gas do so deliberately?
> That they conspire to run into the mountain?

Snoop, if I may join in? Frank, I think what Snoop meant by this is
that running out of gas suggests a lack of planning or situational
awareness.

> You, the SSA members select the board members.

True, but the board picks the Executive Committee.

> To suggest that the volunteer SSA Board members did anything other than
> make an honest error (be it a stupid one) is to imply some type of
> conspiracy theory.

There! behind the grassy knole!Just kidding.

> I know the vast majority of the board members and
> all of the current excom members.

Why is it that most of the people on RAS claim to know all these
people?Do you know Dennis Wright also?What was he thinking?

> I also hope
> that none of you here on the ras have to experinece that from making
> veiled accusations as to the integrety, honesty and the intentions of
> the members of the SSA Board.

Frank, To most of us on RAS or the SSA its not about accusing anyone.
Its about seeing that our dues $$$$ (And contest fees, bussiness dues,
etc.) are invested in such a maner as to further the sport.In the past
few years this has clearly not been the case.
>
> You would indeed be wise to adhear to your dad's advise, "don't do (or
> say) anything that you don't want to have to explain".
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Reid
>
> >
> > "Nothing more, nothing less".
A

[snoop]

>Bingo! Thanks Alice for clarifying that for Frank. Stictly a white elephant scenario to address Franks, "But it was an oversight by the board" message.

[alice]

Frank Reid wrote:
> I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
> motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
> motivation was.

Now Frank, if you claim to know something without any evidence to back
it up, some people might call that speculating.I was not just refering
to you here, but alot of the people who have posted on RAS.You did
claim that the motivation for ignoring the bylaws was stupidity.That
sounds like speculating to me.

>
> I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
> and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
> vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
> members and to the entire current excom.
> Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
> decision of any kind about an audit.

You have to read the post from 5BG on this one.

> > Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.
>
> This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
> cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
> I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
> about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
> bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
> comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
> conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?

First of all, I can accept the fact that a mistake was made. The fact
that it was made three years in a row is a bit of a stretch.I dont
believe in a conspiracy (Yea, I know, now I am SPECULATING that there
was no conspiracy (grin)), but I would like to know why Dennis Wright
knew his CFO was not abiding by the law and chose not to do anything
about it for 3 years.


> As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
> have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
> even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
> me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
> this in as "smoke"?

Now work with me here Frank, it took alot of people to dig this
hole.Arent you the least bit curiuos why the checks and balances that
were put into place after the last fiasco didnt work here?3 years in a
row?

> With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
> you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
> want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
> that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.

With comments like "Nothing more nothing less", you are just expressing
your opinion as I have been expressing mine.Isnt that what part of what
this board is for?For some reason you like to call your opinions
facts.Now I realize the people on the board are hard working buddies of
yours, and this might raise strong feelings for you when their
accountability is called into question, but all you have given us is
your OPINION of why they did not see fit to follow the bylaws.

>
> Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
> investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
> following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
> make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
> tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
> on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
> Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
> speculating just a little on your own?

OK Frank, lets get wrapped up in semantics here.The bylaws were not
followed!!!The people who were elected and trusted to follow them
didnt!!!Where is the speculation in that statement?

> Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
> without absolute proof of your acccusations.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Reid

Are you threatening me?What are you gonna do, fly to Salt Lake and kick
my ass?I always thought this board was for the free exchange of
questions and ideasand opinions, but then there are posters like you,
who post nothing but facts while the rest of us are just
speculating.And then you have to end your post with a physical
threat.Dude, did you get your meds today?

[Frank Reid]

Alice my Dear,


You idiot light is glowing even brighter. This was no physical threat.
This was and still is a statement of fact. If you keep making
accusations concerning the individual board member's intentions and
integrity that are unfounded at some point someone, certainly not me,
may very well "decide" that you need to explain your written statements
to a judge. Please consider my comments as a heads up for you trying
to protect you from yourself. Hiding behind a nickname mayl not
protect you should you cross the line of the legal definition of
"liable" whatever that might be.

Again, just trying to help you stay out of trouble. No threat
intended. Best wishes.

Regards,

Frank Reid

alice wrote:
>
> Are you threatening me?What are you gonna do, fly to Salt Lake and kick
> my ass?I always thought this board was for the free exchange of
> questions and ideasand opinions, but then there are posters like you,
> who post nothing but facts while the rest of us are just
> speculating.And then you have to end your post with a physical
> threat.Dude, did you get your meds today?

[kirk]

Frank Reid wrote:
> Alice my Dear,
>
>
> You idiot light is glowing even brighter.

Now what kind of person cannot debate on an adult level.Do you have to
resort to name calling?Why cant we just stick to the facts here?I hope
you dont behave this way at work.

> This was no physical threat.

Funny, why did you word it like one?Dont hide behind your thin excuse
that this was legal advise.The fact that you are perfectly willing to
call people idiots ruins your credibility.

> This was and still is a statement of fact. If you keep making
> accusations concerning the individual board member's intentions and
> integrity that are unfounded at some point someone, certainly not me,
> may very well "decide" that you need to explain your written statements
> to a judge.

Here we go with the "Fact" thing again. Are you delusional?Go back and
read your original post on this thread, you are claiming that you have
just the facts because you read the minutes of the Excom meetings over
the past few years.Dont you think every SSA member knows that audits
have not been done?How are we exposing ourselves to liability if we ask
why?Have you been watching to much peoples court?

> Please consider my comments as a heads up for you trying
> to protect you from yourself. Hiding behind a nickname mayl not
> protect you should you cross the line of the legal definition of
> "liable" whatever that might be.

Thanks for the advice, we will call you if we ever need a lawyer.
Also, I dont think anyone is trying to hide. In my case my real name
was already taken, so in order to avoid confusion, I just picked
another.Dont read anything into it.

>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Reid
>

[David Walsh]

I see mr. 5-BG is still "dribbling off at the keyboard". Until he has
the nerve / integrity to personally stand behind his comments, they
amount to no more than printed diarrhea.

As for the rest or you, quit rising to his bate. We have no reason to
believe that he is even an SSA member. If he's not a member, then he
has no dogs in the fight and should butt out!

Sincerely,
David Walsh
SSA member



5-BG wrote:
> A direct quote from 9/7 note to members from board "
>
> Why has an audit (or outside financial review) not been done since 2002?
>
> The SSA hired its first CFAO during 2002. In retrospect, this may have
> led to a false sense of security on the part of the Board. 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. In
> retrospect, this was obviously “penny wise, and pound foolish.”
>
> A direct quote from 9/8 update "
>
> Did the Board decide not to do audits?
>
> After the September, 2003 Board meeting, neither the Board nor Executive
> Committee ever discussed audits at all. While this was clearly an error,
> it was one of omission, not commission. "
>
>
>
> How can the board "DECIDE" not to spend funds without discussion. ???
>
> the second note IMPLIES that a decision was taken at the 2003 meeting
> and then carried forward without further discussion into following years.
>
>
>
> I have been a member of several boards of rather large companies, some
> as an inside member due to my equity position and on some as an outside
> director. IN THE REAL WORLD, many decisions are taken upon
> recommendation of the specific sub comittee ( on maters of executive
> compensation and options for example) WITHOUT DISCUSSION. There are
> currently several hundred very large companies ( and their boards)
> under fire for questionable and sometimes downright illigal option
> pricing plans. The companies are in trouble, the management is in
> trouble and the boards are in serious legal trouble. No where in the
> minutes will you find a discussion of backdating stock options and a
> board discussion of the legality of it. Class action lawsuits are flying
> and the boards are named individually.
>
> The MINUTES of board meetings are normally transcribed and edited. The
> real power edits the minutes and then passes around drafts to the
> members for comment. During the following meeting the normal first order
> of business is to approve the minutes of the last meeting which may or
> may NOT represent all that was discussed.
>
> then there is the issue of executive sessions. As a significant
> shareholder/director and inside board member, I demand to be included in
> any executive session. it is not uncommon to be EXCLUDED from executive
> sessions of sub board committees as an outside director.
>
> my point is that your read of the minutes conflicts with the two
> statements issued. The issue was discussed at least once according to
> the first statement. "THE BOARD DECIDED>>>>>" Does that not fit your
> dictionary definition??? IN FACT the first note admits that they
> DECIDED to forego the audit to save money. There are two parts to that.
> 1. their motivation was noble. 2. they made a conscious decision.
>
>
>
> Where to from here is the real question. T
>
> he first note says "The long answer is that our hired management failed
> us, and although all volunteer Directors were well meaning, they all
> share in the blame. The root cause of leadership’s failure to uncover
> the problem until now was the complete absence of outside financial
> reviews or audits since 2002. Between 2003 and the present, the SSA has
> had one Chief Financial and Administrative Officer, one Executive
> Director, two Directors who served as Treasurers, three Directors who
> were Chairmen of the Board, ten Directors who served as Vice Chairmen
> (making up the Executive Committees) and forty-three different
> Directors. To varying degrees and for various reasons, we have all let
> the SSA membership down."
>
> and goes on to say "
>
> Once the Society emerges from this awful situation, our intent is to
> tender resignations in respect of our leadership positions, hoping that
> new, qualified individuals will assume these roles."
>
> I believe that a dysfunctional system has been in place which has
> placed volunteer board members at risk. It seems to me as if the board
> became a pawn of the professional staff and that the board has
> acknowledged as much.
>
> My answer to the real question is to cut the size of the board to 4.
> have the regional directors, all of whom are well meaning individuals
> who are in an unfortunate position right now, become policy advisors
> with a page or two dedicated in each magizine to their discussion of
> issues brought to the board's attention on the behalf of the members.
> Perhaps a review of and change to the bylaws re term of office and
> possible recall needs to be considered as part of the process of
> rebuilding.
>
> Pilots who make a hard landing , or worse, because they did not flare
> properly normally do not CHOOSE to hurt themselves, their passangers and
> their equipment, BUT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE.. Not choosing to do something
> is actually a choice NOT TO TAKE THAT ACTION.
>
> Are we to understand that the two directors who served as treasurers
> and the ED were unaware that an audit was required???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Frank Reid"
> >> wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> alice wrote:
> > Frank, here we go again.There has been endless speculation on R.A.S.
> > about what the EXCOM did and what their motivation was, criminal
> > intent, etc. etc..How do you know exactly what the boards motivation
> > was?
>
> I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
> motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
> motivation was.
>
> I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
> and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
> vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
> members and to the entire current excom.
> Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
> decision of any kind about an audit.
>
> > >
> > > The SSA Board of Directors never, I repeat never, discussed
> > > the issue of 'not doing an audit'. The SSA Board of
> > > Directors never, I repeat never, decided (or voted
> > > on the option) of 'not doing an audit'. I hope that
> > > is clear for all.
> >
> > Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.
>
> This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
> cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
> I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
> about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
> bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
> comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
> conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?
>
> If you
> > look at the Excom update dated 9-7-06 you cant help but notice
> that the
> > ED was well aware of the fact that payroll taxes had not been
> paid for
> > 3 years.Tell us Frank, what was his motivation?
>
> As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
> have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
> even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
> me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
> this in as "smoke"?
>
>
> > I have been communicating with my regional director who has
> informed me
> > that he is assembling a committee (The members of which have not been
> > involved with the SSA during the past two scandals) to
> investigate what
> > happened.With all due respect Frank, you might want to save your
> > speculation until this committee's investigation is complete.
>
> With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
> you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
> want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
> that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.
>
> Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
> investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
> following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
> make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
> tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
> on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
> Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
> speculating just a little on your own?
>
> Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
> without absolute proof of your acccusations.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Reid
>
>
> > >
> > > So what happened? The Board simply did not think about
> > > nor discuss an audit after 2003. Stupid? Yes! Deliberately
> > > breaking the by-laws? No! Thus, the statement from
> > > the excom concerning 'omission versus comission'.
> >
> > More speculation here.Lets wait until the investigation is complete.
> > >
> > > Does the above excuse the Board's lack of oversight
> > > in not assuring that the by-laws were being followed
> > > i.e. that an audit was taking place every year. No.
> > > But it was an oversight by the Board. Nothing more,
> > > nothing less.
> >
> > "The hatch just blew"
> >
> > > Those are the facts.
> > >
> > > Frank Reid

[kirk]

David Walsh wrote:
> I see mr. 5-BG is still "dribbling off at the keyboard". Until he has
> the nerve / integrity to personally stand behind his comments, they
> amount to no more than printed diarrhea.

David, I see you are still "Dribbling off".I have gone through your
posts and about all you do is bad mouth other posters.Have you EVER
added anything constructive to RAS.For your info, 5BG is an SSA member,
and I would ad it really doesnt matter if he is or not.Can you debate
5BG's posts on an intelectual level,or is it all you can do to attack
him personally?
>
> As for the rest or you, quit rising to his bate. We have no reason to
> believe that he is even an SSA member. If he's not a member, then he
> has no dogs in the fight and should butt out!

We should take your advice and quit rising to YOUR bait.Any glider
pilot in this country has a dog in this fight, and has a right to post
here.Quit trying to play god.By signing your posts "SSA Member", you
are making us all look bad.Try adding something constructive on your
next post.
>
> Sincerely,
> David Walsh
> SSA member
>
>

[alice]

Frank Reid wrote:
> Alice my Dear,
>
>
> You idiot light is glowing even brighter. This was no physical threat.
> This was and still is a statement of fact. If you keep making
> accusations concerning the individual board member's intentions and
> integrity that are unfounded at some point someone, certainly not me,
> may very well "decide" that you need to explain your written statements
> to a judge. Please consider my comments as a heads up for you trying
> to protect you from yourself. Hiding behind a nickname mayl not
> protect you should you cross the line of the legal definition of
> "liable" whatever that might be.

Frank, you have a few problems here.One, quit trying to act like a
laywer.I never made any slanderous remarks toward anyone.Two, quit
trying to be a spokespersom for the excom.If they have something that
needs clarification, let them clarify it.On your original post, you
claimed there were no discusions regarding an audit because there was
no mention in the minutes.You have to understand that there could have
been phone calls or emails or discusions throughout the year between
SOMEONE at SSA, and just because it didnt make it onto the minutes
(Which are ussually edited) doesnt mean it was never discussed.Three,
lets be a little more civil here.You dont need to call people names or
accuse them of "hiding" behind a nickname.Most sailplane enthusiasts
that I have met, are pretty first rate people, and you kind of detract
from that with your pettyness.

> Again, just trying to help you stay out of trouble. No threat
> intended. Best wishes.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Reid
Fly Safe

[David Walsh]

With the added perspective of a little time, I now see that the tone of
my post was completely out of line. To all, please accept my apology.

Sincerely,
David Walsh


kirk wrote:
> David Walsh wrote:
>
>>I see mr. 5-BG is still "dribbling off at the keyboard". Until he has
>>the nerve / integrity to personally stand behind his comments, they
>>amount to no more than printed diarrhea.
>
>
> David, I see you are still "Dribbling off".I have gone through your
> posts and about all you do is bad mouth other posters.Have you EVER
> added anything constructive to RAS.For your info, 5BG is an SSA member,
> and I would ad it really doesnt matter if he is or not.Can you debate
> 5BG's posts on an intelectual level,or is it all you can do to attack
> him personally?
>
>>As for the rest or you, quit rising to his bate. We have no reason to
>>believe that he is even an SSA member. If he's not a member, then he
>>has no dogs in the fight and should butt out!
>
>
> We should take your advice and quit rising to YOUR bait.Any glider
> pilot in this country has a dog in this fight, and has a right to post
> here.Quit trying to play god.By signing your posts "SSA Member", you
> are making us all look bad.Try adding something constructive on your
> next post.
>
>>Sincerely,
>>David Walsh
>>SSA member
>>
>>
>
>

[Charlie Lite]

Alice
alice wrote:
> Frank Reid wrote:
> > I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
> > motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
> > motivation was.
>
> Now Frank, if you claim to know something without any evidence to back
> it up, some people might call that speculating.I was not just refering
> to you here, but alot of the people who have posted on RAS.You did
> claim that the motivation for ignoring the bylaws was stupidity.That
> sounds like speculating to me.
>
> >
> > I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
> > and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
> > vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
> > members and to the entire current excom.
> > Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
> > decision of any kind about an audit.
>
> You have to read the post from 5BG on this one.
>
> > > Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.
> >
> > This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
> > cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
> > I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
> > about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
> > bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
> > comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
> > conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?
>
> First of all, I can accept the fact that a mistake was made. The fact
> that it was made three years in a row is a bit of a stretch.I dont
> believe in a conspiracy (Yea, I know, now I am SPECULATING that there
> was no conspiracy (grin)), but I would like to know why Dennis Wright
> knew his CFO was not abiding by the law and chose not to do anything
> about it for 3 years.
>
>
> > As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
> > have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
> > even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
> > me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
> > this in as "smoke"?
>
> Now work with me here Frank, it took alot of people to dig this
> hole.Arent you the least bit curiuos why the checks and balances that
> were put into place after the last fiasco didnt work here?3 years in a
> row?
>
> > With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
> > you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
> > want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
> > that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.
>
> With comments like "Nothing more nothing less", you are just expressing
> your opinion as I have been expressing mine.Isnt that what part of what
> this board is for?For some reason you like to call your opinions
> facts.Now I realize the people on the board are hard working buddies of
> yours, and this might raise strong feelings for you when their
> accountability is called into question, but all you have given us is
> your OPINION of why they did not see fit to follow the bylaws.
>
> >
> > Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
> > investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
> > following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
> > make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
> > tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
> > on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
> > Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
> > speculating just a little on your own?
>
> OK Frank, lets get wrapped up in semantics here.The bylaws were not
> followed!!!The people who were elected and trusted to follow them
> didnt!!!Where is the speculation in that statement?
>
> > Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
> > without absolute proof of your acccusations.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Frank Reid
>
> Are you threatening me?What are you gonna do, fly to Salt Lake and kick
> my ass?I always thought this board was for the free exchange of
> questions and ideasand opinions, but then there are posters like you,
> who post nothing but facts while the rest of us are just
> speculating.And then you have to end your post with a physical
> threat.Dude, did you get your meds today?

Alice

As Board Member I'd like to point out that none of the communications
from the EXCOM have indicated that the ED was aware of the unpaid
taxes. He was aware of the unfiled yearly tax returns but as I
understand it, he had no idea that the witholding
taxes collected from employees had not been fowarded to the appropriate
state or federal authorities.

Charlie "Lite"

[Don Johnstone]

Can I make a small appeal. Those of us outside the
USA have got the picture, the SSA management are incompetent,
so what? We don't need you to tell us over and over
again, it's boring and we believe you. Can we get back
to discussing gliding and let the inevitable enquiry
take it's course.

[Vaughn Simon]

"Charlie Lite" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> As Board Member I'd like to point out that none of the communications
> from the EXCOM have indicated that the ED was aware of the unpaid
> taxes. He was aware of the unfiled yearly tax returns but as I
> understand it, he had no idea that the witholding
> taxes collected from employees had not been fowarded to the appropriate
> state or federal authorities.

My understanding is that the ED is supposed to be our full time,
"hands-on", professional manager. For something this important and this basic,
how could simply claiming ignorance possibly be considered an excuse? Did he
never look at financial statements and budgets?

Vaughn

[5-BG]

FRANK.. regarding the definition of choose..

from the second note from BOD to membership"
Why has an audit (or outside financial review) not been done since 2002?

The SSA hired its first CFAO during 2002. In retrospect, this may have led to a false sense of security on the part of the Board. 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. In retrospect, this was obviously "penny wise, and pound foolish." A full audit by an outside party is planned.

THE BOARD DECIDED... repeat DECIDED...

All of this crap about the board NOT KNOWING is just so much crap. THEY DECIDED not to have an audit and have so stated publically.

So perhaps Charlie as a board member, better find out who on the board DECIDED. I would assume ( AND I UNDERSTAND THE DANGER OF ASSUMING ANYTHING) that the audit waS A LINE ITEM ON THE ANNUAL BUDGET WHICH WAS PREPARED BY CFO AND ED THEN PRESENTED TO BOARD. So acceptance of the budget was the SECOND DECIDED!!!



"It is the responsibility of all Board members to review monthly and yearly financial statements."

So what is it about this statement by the chairman that is difficult to understand??? RESPONSIBILITY and BOD are used in the same sentence.. If the board was unaware they were negligent. Are we to understand that all 26 bod members failed to take care of their responsibilities??. MY CONCLUSION is that the ex com ran the board and that the ed ran the excom..



What this all really means is that the current structure of the board does not work.. it is too big. it is controlled by the ex com.



Finally, i read the bylaws of the foundation and find that its membership is composed of the ssa BOARD,, a couple of the directors are mandated as being from the ssa board. What this means is that iff the ssa reduces the board to a manageable size, the whole foundation structure will also need to be revamped.



As far as the ed not knowing that the actual taxes withheld had not been forwarded.. that is a real hard one to swollow.



futrther, "

Why didn't the Association's Treasurer or Executive Director take necessary steps to ensure that federal and state income tax returns were filed in a timely fashion?

"It is the responsibility of the ED to sign tax returns, and assure they are filed in a timely fashion. 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. The ED has taken full responsibility for his actions in this regard. "



"Additionally, we just learned that the tax return prepared by our accountants for the period January 1, to September 30, 2002 (the "non stub" portion of 2002) was delivered to the CFAO years ago, but he never mailed it to the IRS."

Charlie>>>> WHY IS THIS GUY STILL ON THE PAYROLL.. you are on the board.. We need to hear something. You continue to make excuses for the ed.. There is no excuse for not mailing in a return from 2003 that just need signiture.. unless, as i suspect, you KNOW that it is a fraudlent return and you don't want to sign it.. But, put that aside.. KNOWING that returns for payroll taxes are not being filed by the cfo would certainly cause most ceo's (or ed's) to ask a question or two..

The final indignity of this situation is that it developed immediatly after another series of bad internal experiences that were basically covered up and not made part of the general membership discussion. I take it that you are a repeat BOD member.. didn't you learn anything the last time???





5bg





"Charlie Lite" > wrote in message oups.com...
Alice
alice wrote:
> Frank Reid wrote:
> > I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
> > motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
> > motivation was.
>
> Now Frank, if you claim to know something without any evidence to back
> it up, some people might call that speculating.I was not just refering
> to you here, but alot of the people who have posted on RAS.You did
> claim that the motivation for ignoring the bylaws was stupidity.That
> sounds like speculating to me.
>
> >
> > I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
> > and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
> > vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
> > members and to the entire current excom.
> > Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
> > decision of any kind about an audit.
>
> You have to read the post from 5BG on this one.
>
> > > Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.
> >
> > This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
> > cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
> > I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
> > about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
> > bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
> > comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
> > conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?
>
> First of all, I can accept the fact that a mistake was made. The fact
> that it was made three years in a row is a bit of a stretch.I dont
> believe in a conspiracy (Yea, I know, now I am SPECULATING that there
> was no conspiracy (grin)), but I would like to know why Dennis Wright
> knew his CFO was not abiding by the law and chose not to do anything
> about it for 3 years.
>
>
> > As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
> > have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
> > even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
> > me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
> > this in as "smoke"?
>
> Now work with me here Frank, it took alot of people to dig this
> hole.Arent you the least bit curiuos why the checks and balances that
> were put into place after the last fiasco didnt work here?3 years in a
> row?
>
> > With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
> > you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
> > want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
> > that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.
>
> With comments like "Nothing more nothing less", you are just expressing
> your opinion as I have been expressing mine.Isnt that what part of what
> this board is for?For some reason you like to call your opinions
> facts.Now I realize the people on the board are hard working buddies of
> yours, and this might raise strong feelings for you when their
> accountability is called into question, but all you have given us is
> your OPINION of why they did not see fit to follow the bylaws.
>
> >
> > Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
> > investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
> > following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
> > make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
> > tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
> > on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
> > Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
> > speculating just a little on your own?
>
> OK Frank, lets get wrapped up in semantics here.The bylaws were not
> followed!!!The people who were elected and trusted to follow them
> didnt!!!Where is the speculation in that statement?
>
> > Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
> > without absolute proof of your acccusations.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Frank Reid
>
> Are you threatening me?What are you gonna do, fly to Salt Lake and kick
> my ass?I always thought this board was for the free exchange of
> questions and ideasand opinions, but then there are posters like you,
> who post nothing but facts while the rest of us are just
> speculating.And then you have to end your post with a physical
> threat.Dude, did you get your meds today?

Alice

As Board Member I'd like to point out that none of the communications
from the EXCOM have indicated that the ED was aware of the unpaid
taxes. He was aware of the unfiled yearly tax returns but as I
understand it, he had no idea that the witholding
taxes collected from employees had not been fowarded to the appropriate
state or federal authorities.

Charlie "Lite"

[5-BG]

don;
NO we cannot take this discussion elsewhere as there is no viable venue within ssa for this discussion. The ssa is in deep **** and in need of a major reorganization. personal notes to the ex com and the rest of the board go UNANSWERED. the lawyers are now involved and i suspect that everyone has been told to keep quiet. This venue is about as close to a free exchange of ideas re ssa as is possible
I suggest that you highlite topics you do not wish to read and use your delete key.

The inquiry is NOT taking a normal course which is why we need this place.
"Don Johnstone" > wrote in message ...
Can I make a small appeal. Those of us outside the
USA have got the picture, the SSA management are incompetent,
so what? We don't need you to tell us over and over
again, it's boring and we believe you. Can we get back
to discussing gliding and let the inevitable enquiry
take it's course.

[Michael McNulty]

"Charlie Lite" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Alice
> alice wrote:
>> Frank Reid wrote:
>> > I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
>> > motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
>> > motivation was.
>>
>> Now Frank, if you claim to know something without any evidence to back
>> it up, some people might call that speculating.I was not just refering
>> to you here, but alot of the people who have posted on RAS.You did
>> claim that the motivation for ignoring the bylaws was stupidity.That
>> sounds like speculating to me.
>>
>> >
>> > I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
>> > and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
>> > vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
>> > members and to the entire current excom.
>> > Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
>> > decision of any kind about an audit.
>>
>> You have to read the post from 5BG on this one.
>>
>> > > Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.
>> >
>> > This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
>> > cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
>> > I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
>> > about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
>> > bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
>> > comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
>> > conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?
>>
>> First of all, I can accept the fact that a mistake was made. The fact
>> that it was made three years in a row is a bit of a stretch.I dont
>> believe in a conspiracy (Yea, I know, now I am SPECULATING that there
>> was no conspiracy (grin)), but I would like to know why Dennis Wright
>> knew his CFO was not abiding by the law and chose not to do anything
>> about it for 3 years.
>>
>>
>> > As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
>> > have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
>> > even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
>> > me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
>> > this in as "smoke"?
>>
>> Now work with me here Frank, it took alot of people to dig this
>> hole.Arent you the least bit curiuos why the checks and balances that
>> were put into place after the last fiasco didnt work here?3 years in a
>> row?
>>
>> > With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
>> > you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
>> > want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
>> > that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.
>>
>> With comments like "Nothing more nothing less", you are just expressing
>> your opinion as I have been expressing mine.Isnt that what part of what
>> this board is for?For some reason you like to call your opinions
>> facts.Now I realize the people on the board are hard working buddies of
>> yours, and this might raise strong feelings for you when their
>> accountability is called into question, but all you have given us is
>> your OPINION of why they did not see fit to follow the bylaws.
>>
>> >
>> > Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
>> > investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
>> > following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
>> > make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
>> > tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
>> > on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
>> > Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
>> > speculating just a little on your own?
>>
>> OK Frank, lets get wrapped up in semantics here.The bylaws were not
>> followed!!!The people who were elected and trusted to follow them
>> didnt!!!Where is the speculation in that statement?
>>
>> > Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
>> > without absolute proof of your acccusations.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Frank Reid
>>
>> Are you threatening me?What are you gonna do, fly to Salt Lake and kick
>> my ass?I always thought this board was for the free exchange of
>> questions and ideasand opinions, but then there are posters like you,
>> who post nothing but facts while the rest of us are just
>> speculating.And then you have to end your post with a physical
>> threat.Dude, did you get your meds today?
>
> Alice
>
> As Board Member I'd like to point out that none of the communications
> from the EXCOM have indicated that the ED was aware of the unpaid
> taxes. He was aware of the unfiled yearly tax returns but as I
> understand it, he had no idea that the witholding
> taxes collected from employees had not been fowarded to the appropriate
> state or federal authorities.
>
> Charlie "Lite"
>

Charlie,

How does the professional ED justify being aware of the failure to file, and
not correcting the situation or informing the board? I can't imagine a
reason good enough to save his job, but I'm listening.

[Stewart Kissel]

At 21:36 25 September 2006, Don Johnstone wrote:
>Can I make a small appeal. Those of us outside the
>USA have got the picture, the SSA management are incompetent,
>so what? We don't need you to tell us over and over
>again, it's boring and we believe you. Can we get back
>to discussing gliding and let the inevitable enquiry
>take it's course.>

A.) You must be the evil twin of that other Don Johnstone
who just posted to the parallel thread.
B.) A useful tip...the mouse has a left click button,
it does not have to be used when looking at threads
of no interest.
C.) If overcome by irrestible urge to click on the
aforementioned threads, one is under no obligation
to read them.

[Mike Schumann]

If he knew the yearly tax returns weren't filed, wouldn't this raise HUGE
red flags? Wouldn't it be logical, for the ED to ask some further questions
and see what else hadn't been done as required?

Mike Schumann

"Charlie Lite" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Alice
> alice wrote:
>> Frank Reid wrote:
>> > I have made no speculation about what the excom did nor what their
>> > motivation was. Nor have I made any comments as to what the boards
>> > motivation was.
>>
>> Now Frank, if you claim to know something without any evidence to back
>> it up, some people might call that speculating.I was not just refering
>> to you here, but alot of the people who have posted on RAS.You did
>> claim that the motivation for ignoring the bylaws was stupidity.That
>> sounds like speculating to me.
>>
>> >
>> > I have on the other hand read all the board minutes from 2002 foreward
>> > and there is no mention at all about an audit, much less some sort of
>> > vote or discussion. I have also corresponded with many of the board
>> > members and to the entire current excom.
>> > Each and every one agrees. There was no vote, no discussion, and no
>> > decision of any kind about an audit.
>>
>> You have to read the post from 5BG on this one.
>>
>> > > Here again, how do you know why they chose to ignore the bylaws.
>> >
>> > This sentence is what is known as begging the question. You apparently
>> > cannot accept that the board did not make a decision on the audit. So
>> > I will say it again. The board did not make a decision of any kind
>> > about the audit and therefore, in no way did "they chose to ignore the
>> > bylaws". If you insist on making that statement the premise of your
>> > comments then you have already declared them guilty of some "big bad
>> > conspiracy". Is that what you really mean to do?
>>
>> First of all, I can accept the fact that a mistake was made. The fact
>> that it was made three years in a row is a bit of a stretch.I dont
>> believe in a conspiracy (Yea, I know, now I am SPECULATING that there
>> was no conspiracy (grin)), but I would like to know why Dennis Wright
>> knew his CFO was not abiding by the law and chose not to do anything
>> about it for 3 years.
>>
>>
>> > As above I have made no comment as to the motivation(s) of anyone. I
>> > have been addressing the volunteer SSA Board members and nowhere have I
>> > even mentioned the paid staff including the ED and the CFAO. So tell
>> > me Alice, do you have trouble sticking to a topic or did you just throw
>> > this in as "smoke"?
>>
>> Now work with me here Frank, it took alot of people to dig this
>> hole.Arent you the least bit curiuos why the checks and balances that
>> were put into place after the last fiasco didnt work here?3 years in a
>> row?
>>
>> > With all due respect, Alice, I have made no speculation. I have told
>> > you facts that you have decided are speculation. However, since you
>> > want to call my comments speculation please tell us all what you know
>> > that makes what I have said speculation instead of fact.
>>
>> With comments like "Nothing more nothing less", you are just expressing
>> your opinion as I have been expressing mine.Isnt that what part of what
>> this board is for?For some reason you like to call your opinions
>> facts.Now I realize the people on the board are hard working buddies of
>> yours, and this might raise strong feelings for you when their
>> accountability is called into question, but all you have given us is
>> your OPINION of why they did not see fit to follow the bylaws.
>>
>> >
>> > Additionally, what would you call someone who, before this grand
>> > investigation has concluded, has accused the Board of Directors of the
>> > following: "they chose to ignore the bylaws"? And before you answer
>> > make sure you know the definition of the word "chose". It is the past
>> > tense of "choose - to select freely and after consideration, to decide
>> > on esp. by vote". Are you sure you want to accuse the SSA Board of
>> > Directors of this action? Or is it just possible that you have been
>> > speculating just a little on your own?
>>
>> OK Frank, lets get wrapped up in semantics here.The bylaws were not
>> followed!!!The people who were elected and trusted to follow them
>> didnt!!!Where is the speculation in that statement?
>>
>> > Indeed, your "hatch may just blow" if you continue to accuse the Board
>> > without absolute proof of your acccusations.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Frank Reid
>>
>> Are you threatening me?What are you gonna do, fly to Salt Lake and kick
>> my ass?I always thought this board was for the free exchange of
>> questions and ideasand opinions, but then there are posters like you,
>> who post nothing but facts while the rest of us are just
>> speculating.And then you have to end your post with a physical
>> threat.Dude, did you get your meds today?
>
> Alice
>
> As Board Member I'd like to point out that none of the communications
> from the EXCOM have indicated that the ED was aware of the unpaid
> taxes. He was aware of the unfiled yearly tax returns but as I
> understand it, he had no idea that the witholding
> taxes collected from employees had not been fowarded to the appropriate
> state or federal authorities.
>
> Charlie "Lite"
>

[Vaughn Simon]

"Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> If he knew the yearly tax returns weren't filed, wouldn't this raise HUGE red
> flags? Wouldn't it be logical, for the ED to ask some further questions and
> see what else hadn't been done as required?

This is a huge question that is central to the situation, and I have been
asking it for over a week now. The only response I hear is a massive silence.
These are basic things that any professional manager of any kind of organization
should do as a matter of course.

Because of this silence, I am quickly losing confidence and patience.
Until we get some real answers, Hobbs can save a bit of money by not bothering
to send me a dues notice.

Vaughn

[Brian Glick]

Vaughn

That is the exact reason why the ED is out!!!!!


Brian
"Vaughn Simon" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Schumann" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>> If he knew the yearly tax returns weren't filed, wouldn't this raise HUGE
>> red flags? Wouldn't it be logical, for the ED to ask some further
>> questions and see what else hadn't been done as required?
>
> This is a huge question that is central to the situation, and I have
> been asking it for over a week now. The only response I hear is a massive
> silence. These are basic things that any professional manager of any kind
> of organization should do as a matter of course.
>
> Because of this silence, I am quickly losing confidence and patience.
> Until we get some real answers, Hobbs can save a bit of money by not
> bothering to send me a dues notice.
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
>
>