Present SSA crisis

[Greg Arnold]

There has been a lot of criticism of the Directors on RAS. However,
when you have a couple dozen well-meaning (but basically unqualified)
persons on the Board, and you get in this type of situation, probably
the problem is with the system rather than with the individuals. Put
another two dozen randomly selected soaring pilots on the Board, and the
same thing would have happened.

If the SSA survives, it really needs to hire an outside consultant who
is an expert on non-profit membership organizations, and who can advise
about the proper governing structure. For example, is it good to have
so many directors? Would it be better to have a much smaller governing
body, where each individual is directly responsible for something,
rather than the current situation where any individual is just a face in
the crowd, and bears no direct responsibility for his/her mistakes?

If the Board had hired such a consultant a few years ago, the Board
would have learned about the necessity of an outside audit, and also
would have been told to set up a system of checks and balances, so it
would have been difficult for an employee to create the current
problems. So we wouldn't be in the present mess.

This leads to a point that someone else recently made on RAS -- maybe
what the SSA really needs is to hire someone (perhaps only as a
part-time advisor) who is knowledgeable about running a non-profit
organization, and who can provide continuing advice. Such people
probably are a dime a dozen in Washington. This may is the best
argument for getting the SSA out of Hobbs -- you just aren't going to
find the right people in Hobbs.

[Frank Reid]

Greg,

I could not agree with you more. Good post.

Maybe we should be in Elmira, NY right along side of, or even in the
same building with, the National Soaring Museum. Way back in the 70s
or 80s the board discussed moving to Elmira but for some unkown reason
it was voted down. Maybe now is the time to rethink that issue and
join the NSM under one roof (if they would have us).

There could be a lot of advantages to that move.

Regards,

Frank Reid


Greg Arnold wrote:
> There has been a lot of criticism of the Directors on RAS. However,
> when you have a couple dozen well-meaning (but basically unqualified)
> persons on the Board, and you get in this type of situation, probably
> the problem is with the system rather than with the individuals. Put
> another two dozen randomly selected soaring pilots on the Board, and the
> same thing would have happened.
>
> If the SSA survives, it really needs to hire an outside consultant who
> is an expert on non-profit membership organizations, and who can advise
> about the proper governing structure. For example, is it good to have
> so many directors? Would it be better to have a much smaller governing
> body, where each individual is directly responsible for something,
> rather than the current situation where any individual is just a face in
> the crowd, and bears no direct responsibility for his/her mistakes?
>
> If the Board had hired such a consultant a few years ago, the Board
> would have learned about the necessity of an outside audit, and also
> would have been told to set up a system of checks and balances, so it
> would have been difficult for an employee to create the current
> problems. So we wouldn't be in the present mess.
>
> This leads to a point that someone else recently made on RAS -- maybe
> what the SSA really needs is to hire someone (perhaps only as a
> part-time advisor) who is knowledgeable about running a non-profit
> organization, and who can provide continuing advice. Such people
> probably are a dime a dozen in Washington. This may is the best
> argument for getting the SSA out of Hobbs -- you just aren't going to
> find the right people in Hobbs.

[Sam Fly]

Frank Reid wrote:

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

This is the second time in four years, the BOD and Excon have been
caught with there pants down. SSA needs a complete overhaul of the
office policies and bookkeeping procedures. Anytime an organization that
collects money for a membership card, publishes a monthly magazine,
sells merchandise and helps contest flying with a few printed cards
continues to get in trouble with someone's hand in the kitty, it is time
for a change.

We have had several articles about "Where is the world is Dennis", he
should have been in the office managing the office.

Sam Fly


> Greg,
>
> I could not agree with you more. Good post.
>
> Maybe we should be in Elmira, NY right along side of, or even in the
> same building with, the National Soaring Museum. Way back in the 70s
> or 80s the board discussed moving to Elmira but for some unkown reason
> it was voted down. Maybe now is the time to rethink that issue and
> join the NSM under one roof (if they would have us).
>
> There could be a lot of advantages to that move.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Reid
>
>
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>
>>There has been a lot of criticism of the Directors on RAS. However,
>>when you have a couple dozen well-meaning (but basically unqualified)
>>persons on the Board, and you get in this type of situation, probably
>>the problem is with the system rather than with the individuals. Put
>>another two dozen randomly selected soaring pilots on the Board, and the
>>same thing would have happened.
>>
>>If the SSA survives, it really needs to hire an outside consultant who
>>is an expert on non-profit membership organizations, and who can advise
>>about the proper governing structure. For example, is it good to have
>>so many directors? Would it be better to have a much smaller governing
>>body, where each individual is directly responsible for something,
>>rather than the current situation where any individual is just a face in
>>the crowd, and bears no direct responsibility for his/her mistakes?
>>
>>If the Board had hired such a consultant a few years ago, the Board
>>would have learned about the necessity of an outside audit, and also
>>would have been told to set up a system of checks and balances, so it
>>would have been difficult for an employee to create the current
>>problems. So we wouldn't be in the present mess.
>>
>>This leads to a point that someone else recently made on RAS -- maybe
>>what the SSA really needs is to hire someone (perhaps only as a
>>part-time advisor) who is knowledgeable about running a non-profit
>>organization, and who can provide continuing advice. Such people
>>probably are a dime a dozen in Washington. This may is the best
>>argument for getting the SSA out of Hobbs -- you just aren't going to
>>find the right people in Hobbs.
>
>

[kirk]

Greg Arnold wrote:
> There has been a lot of criticism of the Directors on RAS. However,
> when you have a couple dozen well-meaning (but basically unqualified)
> persons on the Board, and you get in this type of situation, probably
> the problem is with the system rather than with the individuals.

Just my opinion here (Unlike the posts of Frank Reid, which are
indesputible facts), you are correct. It would still be in the best
intrest of SSA if the Executive committee were to resign.I think this
would help restore the membership's faith in SSA.
>
> If the SSA survives, it really needs to hire an outside consultant who
> is an expert on non-profit membership organizations, and who can advise
> about the proper governing structure. For example, is it good to have
> so many directors? Would it be better to have a much smaller governing
> body, where each individual is directly responsible for something,
> rather than the current situation where any individual is just a face in
> the crowd, and bears no direct responsibility for his/her mistakes?

It would probably be good to keep the regional system intact, but
update the Executive board system.You should forward your ideas to your
regional director.I have been in contact with my regional director (Who
is good drinking buddies with Frank Reid), and he has assured me that
the SSA management is going to get a complete overhaul.

> This leads to a point that someone else recently made on RAS -- maybe
> what the SSA really needs is to hire someone (perhaps only as a
> part-time advisor) who is knowledgeable about running a non-profit
> organization, and who can provide continuing advice. Such people
> probably are a dime a dozen in Washington. This may is the best
> argument for getting the SSA out of Hobbs -- you just aren't going to
> find the right people in Hobbs.

It has kind of amazed me that with all the money that flows through the
SSA every year, it is run mostly by part time volenteers.Dedicated full
time staff and a move out of Hobbs is exactly what they need.Take a
look at what the Academy of Model Aeronatics managed to do.Years ago
they were faced with declining membership, vitually nonexisant
participation in their national event, and an upstart competing
organization.They managed to turn all that around, and vastly improve
their magazine in the process.I see no reason (Other than the current
management) why the SSA couldnt do the same thing.

[COLIN LAMB]

Although there is a present crisis at the SSA, involving a substantial
amount of money, the problem is pretty basic - the lack of financial
oversight.

I am a lawyer and have served non-profit organizations and insured that what
happened in this case did not happen. There are plenty of lawyers or CPAs
that could have easily prevented this from happening, by respecting the
bylaws and other corporate regulations. There are good attorneys and CPAs
in Hobbs, NM as well as elsewhere. On the other hand financial
mis-management can occur anywhere.

Moving the SSA should not be done because of financial mismanagement. That
would not solve the problem. If Hobbs is not the best place, for other
reasons, then a move should be considered by the Board. If Hobbs is the
best place, then it should remain there. Hobbs is not the cause of the
financial loss.

The lesson learned will prevent it from happening again. This is a perfect
example of why checks and balances are important. The Board members were
elected and they tried their best. That they failed to do an adequate
pre-flight was a simple - but costly mistake, which I trust they will not
repeat.

This is an opportunity to make improvements to the SSA. Fix the things that
are broken - but do not discard what is good about it. It is a non-profit
organization that helps us enjoy the freedom of flight.

Colin

[5-BG]

I have been a member of ssa for 15 years. I look casually through the mag every month. i was aware that we hired a new ed several years ago.

I was NOT AWARE that there was any problem with the last ed. nor do i have any idea what people "in the know" are referring to when they reference past problems ( computer system, credit card abuse, the site selection etc. )

Did I miss a discussion in our monthly magazine or a note from the board re these past problems?? or were they quietly dealt with by a select few and the information not made known to the membership?

If a select group "quietly handles" messy problems, it creates a super class of members. Protecting the general membership from details that are unpleasant sets the stage for bigger and bigger problems.

A culture simply cannot be allowed to develop within an organization such as SSA in which a select few dispose of problems quietly. A non profit organization should, imho, be run as a transparantly as possible. This is a basic concept that should be instilled in every employee also.
If the last ed was fired for cause, we should have been told.

moving forward requires a hard look at the past.
"Sam Fly" > wrote in message news:dCEOg.52$uj3.45@trnddc08...


Frank Reid wrote:

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

This is the second time in four years, the BOD and Excon have been
caught with there pants down. SSA needs a complete overhaul of the
office policies and bookkeeping procedures. Anytime an organization that
collects money for a membership card, publishes a monthly magazine,
sells merchandise and helps contest flying with a few printed cards
continues to get in trouble with someone's hand in the kitty, it is time
for a change.

We have had several articles about "Where is the world is Dennis", he
should have been in the office managing the office.

Sam Fly


> Greg,
>
> I could not agree with you more. Good post.
>
> Maybe we should be in Elmira, NY right along side of, or even in the
> same building with, the National Soaring Museum. Way back in the 70s
> or 80s the board discussed moving to Elmira but for some unkown reason
> it was voted down. Maybe now is the time to rethink that issue and
> join the NSM under one roof (if they would have us).
>
> There could be a lot of advantages to that move.
>
> Regards,
>
> Frank Reid
>
>
> Greg Arnold wrote:
>
>>There has been a lot of criticism of the Directors on RAS. However,
>>when you have a couple dozen well-meaning (but basically unqualified)
>>persons on the Board, and you get in this type of situation, probably
>>the problem is with the system rather than with the individuals. Put
>>another two dozen randomly selected soaring pilots on the Board, and the
>>same thing would have happened.
>>
>>If the SSA survives, it really needs to hire an outside consultant who
>>is an expert on non-profit membership organizations, and who can advise
>>about the proper governing structure. For example, is it good to have
>>so many directors? Would it be better to have a much smaller governing
>>body, where each individual is directly responsible for something,
>>rather than the current situation where any individual is just a face in
>>the crowd, and bears no direct responsibility for his/her mistakes?
>>
>>If the Board had hired such a consultant a few years ago, the Board
>>would have learned about the necessity of an outside audit, and also
>>would have been told to set up a system of checks and balances, so it
>>would have been difficult for an employee to create the current
>>problems. So we wouldn't be in the present mess.
>>
>>This leads to a point that someone else recently made on RAS -- maybe
>>what the SSA really needs is to hire someone (perhaps only as a
>>part-time advisor) who is knowledgeable about running a non-profit
>>organization, and who can provide continuing advice. Such people
>>probably are a dime a dozen in Washington. This may is the best
>>argument for getting the SSA out of Hobbs -- you just aren't going to
>>find the right people in Hobbs.
>
>

[[email protected]]

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

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

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

[Jim Vincent]

What do you call a "similar" grad school? Do you have to fly an ASW-29 as
well?



Please don't from any accredit
> wrote in message
oups.com...

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

[[email protected]]

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

2c


wrote:
> Greg Arnold wrote:
> > If the SSA survives, it really needs to hire an outside consultant who
> > is an expert on non-profit membership organizations, and who can advise
> > about the proper governing structure.
>
> A good idea, but it might be even better to see if we could get help
> from Harvard, Stanford or similar Biz School alumni on a volunteer
> basis. I know both Harvard and Stanford have programs of this nature to
> help non-profit organizations run more efficiently. One of my good
> friends does this through Harvard's program and he is a first rate
> consultant, much better than SSA could probably afford to hire. (He's
> the former CFO of a public company.) And he puts in a fair amount of
> time on his projects. It's not just a "look good" thing.
>
> A big question is whether there are any such people willing to work on
> SSA, esp given its remote location. Maybe there are some such people on
> this site??

[Eric Greenwell]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

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

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

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

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

[Dan and Jan Armstrong]

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

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Sam Fly wrote:
> >
> >
> > Frank Reid wrote:
> >
> > Frank, SSA was moved to Hobbs due to the efforts of Jack Gomez, Mr Hobbs
> > in his day, and Judge Hal Lattimore...Jack wanted it and Judge Lattimore
> > as a Director of Region 10 delivered it. Marion Griffith had a sweet
> > deal for a site near DFW Airport between Dallas and Fort Worth. But the
> > Judge had control of the BOD's actions, in those days.
>
> I was there, and Hal (Judge) Lattimore (did not control the BOD's
> actions. I certainly did not get any pressure from him. Sterling Starr
> was in control of the process (not the outcome) and I think he did a
> damn good job. He didn't seem like the kind of guy Hal could push around.
>
> This is a "reprint" of a posting I made about Jan 2005:
>
> "Warning: some details below may differ from the facts, due to imperfect
> memory!
>
> The decision to locate the SSA headquarters in Hobbs was not easy,
> cheap, or done casually. I was a Regional director at the time (about 15
> years ago) when it was decided to move the headquarters out of Santa
> Monica, which had become extremely expensive to lease.
>
> The process consumed considerable time and effort over many, many months
> on the Director's part, as they sought bids from all over the country.
> The primary bids came from soaring groups in Colorado Springs, Elmira,
> and Hobbs. Each place made passionate presentations, describing why
> their place was the best.
>
> When it came time to vote, the majority of the Directors voted for Hobbs
> as the best overall bid for meeting the Society's needs. All bidders had
> strengths in different areas, but Hobbs (in the form of the city and the
> county) offer of substantial financial assistance, other aid, and a
> history of low labor costs, tipped the balance. At the time of our vote,
> the Society was swimming in red ink, and this aid was crucial.
>
> As a result, we acquired a fine new office building built to our
> specifications in an area of excellent soaring, just across the street
> from the airport where regional and national contests are held, and
> where the National Soaring Foundation conducts its operation.
>
> Re-locating the office is possible and would yield some benefits, but
> the overall picture must be considered very carefully to ensure a net
> benefit after the time and costs of finding a new place, moving there,
> and continuing operational costs are included."
>
> --
>
> --
> Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA
>
> "Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
> www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html
>
> "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Bob Kuykendall]

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

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

;)

Bob K.

[Dan and Jan Armstrong]

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

wrote:
> My understanding is that years ago when the SSA "worked" it was run by
> young dynamic leaders who loved soaring (e.g. John Dezutti) who took a
> position like ED almost right out of college/B-school, spent several
> years learning the ropes of running a large organization, then moved on
> to bigger and better things (notice the success of the 83 Worlds
> organized under a tight timeline following the UK's scuffle with
> Argentina/Falklands Islands in this timeframe). They were probably
> also cheaper than the six figure ED's we've had lately. I'm all in
> favor of this plan, and hell, I even know where you can find one (or
> more) individuals who fit the description.
>
> 2c
>
>
> wrote:
> > Greg Arnold wrote:
> > > If the SSA survives, it really needs to hire an outside consultant who
> > > is an expert on non-profit membership organizations, and who can advise
> > > about the proper governing structure.
> >
> > A good idea, but it might be even better to see if we could get help
> > from Harvard, Stanford or similar Biz School alumni on a volunteer
> > basis. I know both Harvard and Stanford have programs of this nature to
> > help non-profit organizations run more efficiently. One of my good
> > friends does this through Harvard's program and he is a first rate
> > consultant, much better than SSA could probably afford to hire. (He's
> > the former CFO of a public company.) And he puts in a fair amount of
> > time on his projects. It's not just a "look good" thing.
> >
> > A big question is whether there are any such people willing to work on
> > SSA, esp given its remote location. Maybe there are some such people on
> > this site??

[Vaughn Simon]

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

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

Vaughn

[COLIN LAMB]

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

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

Colin

[[email protected]]

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

http://www.fau.edu/divdept/caupa/advising/apply/mnm/overview.html


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

Actually, that is not an idle question!

Vaughn

[Jack[_6_]]

COLIN LAMB wrote:


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


Particularly if he is a bit of a recluse.

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

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


Jack

[Dan and Jan Armstrong]

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

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

Janice Armstrong

Jack wrote:
> COLIN LAMB wrote:
>
>
> > Ford just did a massive restructuring - it is
> > headquarted in a large city. I bet one of the executives that was just
> > terminated would not mind moving to Hobbs to start anew.
>
>
> Particularly if he is a bit of a recluse.
>
> One would expect that there are hundreds of qualified people within an
> hour or two drive of the Denver area, for example, who might be
> interested -- if they didn't have to move their families to Hobbs NM.
>
> Does the perfect hire exist somewhere out there? No doubt. Does s/he
> want to move to Hobbs NM? Doubt.
>
>
> Jack

[Ian Cant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Agenda Item 5.0 Soaring Magazine

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ian



At 22:48 21 September 2006, Dan and Jan Armstrong wrote:
>I'm not convinced that the current problem has nothing
>to do with
>Hobbs. I believe if the office were located somewhere
>more
>convenient, maybe Board members and members and volunteers
>might have
>come in and, in the case of the Board, supervised more
>closely. Maybe
>a finance committee meeting in Hobbs might have caught
>this earlier.
>My big question is, if Dennis Wright knew about this,
>why didn't he say
>anything to the Board? Maybe Board presence and working
>more closely
>(in a proximate fashion) might have fostered a climate
>where he was
>able to report this earlier, when it was only a l'ittle'
>problem.
>
>There are a whole bunch of better locations than Hobbs,
>in terms of
>ease of access for visitors/volunteers. The Denver
>area is just one
>example.
>
>Janice Armstrong
>
>Jack wrote:
>> COLIN LAMB wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Ford just did a massive restructuring - it is
>> > headquarted in a large city. I bet one of the executives
>>>that was just
>> > terminated would not mind moving to Hobbs to start
>>>anew.
>>
>>
>> Particularly if he is a bit of a recluse.
>>
>> One would expect that there are hundreds of qualified
>>people within an
>> hour or two drive of the Denver area, for example,
>>who might be
>> interested -- if they didn't have to move their families
>>to Hobbs NM.
>>
>> Does the perfect hire exist somewhere out there? No
>>doubt. Does s/he
>> want to move to Hobbs NM? Doubt.
>>
>>
>> Jack
>
>

[SAM 303a]

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

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

"Ian Cant" > wrote in message
...
> Hobbs' geographical position is only one aspect of
> the 'remoteness' of the SSA. Clearly the Board and
> ExCom were not in close touch with the activities at
> Hobbs. It is equally clear that neither the Board
> nor the staff are in close touch with the interests
> and opinions of the membership as a whole.
>
> It really is time for a general election for a whole
> new Board, a revision of the by-laws to increase overall
> transparency and prevent 'overlooking' clearly stated
> requirements, a review of the functions of the staff,
> and possibly a subsequent decision to relocate or outsource
> the back office functions.
>
> Why has there been no rational explanation of the ED's
> role in this fiasco ? Why has the Board appointed
> a subset of itself to investigate itself ? What is
> being done with the Foundation's funds to tackle the
> financial problem, and what are the understandings
> on re-funding the Foundation afterwards ? There may
> be innocuous answers to these questions, but until
> they are addressed members have both a right and a
> duty to press for more information.
>
> Board members complain about the highly negative attitudes
> towards the SSA from its own membership [and the ED
> is a skilled whiner about the calls he fields from
> members]. Members are upset because they have been
> getting lousy service from an SSA that has not responded
> to their needs. We need a fresh start. Keeping the
> same groups of people in the same locations will ensure
> that we will also keep the same old attitudes and behaviors
> that have failed us so badly in the past.
>
> Individual Board members are hard-working volunteers,
> but the entire culture is unhealthy.
>
> Let me give two examples. The first relates directly
> to the Hobbs problem. Look at http://www.ssa.org/download/6ssa27.
> doc
> and read agenda item 5.0
>
> 'Agenda Item 5.0 Soaring Magazine
>
> The Excomm reviewed the staff's paper on advertising
> for a proofreader in Hobbs, carried out at the Excomm's
> request. The purpose of doing so was to ascertain local
> availability of such skills and establish a benchmark
> hourly rate. Given the pitifully poor quality of all
> the respondents to the advertisement, the Excomm then
> concurred in the continuation of the present arrangements
> for Ms. Diana Wright, the Executive Director's spouse,
> working as part-time proofreader for Soaring Magazine.'
>
> If even a competent proofreader cannot be found in
> Hobbs, and our selected work-around smacks of nepotism,
> is Hobbs really a good place to conduct our business
> ?
>
> Second, the by-laws which our Board apparently does
> not feel obliged to obey in the case of audits, also
> state that
>
> 'At least one-third (1/3) of the number of Directors
> as fixed by these bylaws, shall be necessary to constitute
> a quorum for the transaction of business '.
>
> The by-laws provide for a Board of 26 Directors; a
> quorum would require 9 to be present. Yet the Board
> has decided to delegate all its powers to an ExCom
> of only 5 Directors. If the full Board needs 9, is
> it within either the letter or the spirit of the by-laws
> to make major decisions with a subset of only 5 ?
> Ther is no specific mention of the ExCom in the by-laws,
> yet the ExCom minutes routinely start by stating 'a
> quorum being present'.
>
> I repeat, this culture is unhealthy and must be rooted
> out.
>
> Sorry to bring all this up on ras, but the SSA does
> not provide any alternative internal platform for its
> members to express their disquiet.
>
> Ian
>
>
>
> At 22:48 21 September 2006, Dan and Jan Armstrong wrote:
> >I'm not convinced that the current problem has nothing
> >to do with
> >Hobbs. I believe if the office were located somewhere
> >more
> >convenient, maybe Board members and members and volunteers
> >might have
> >come in and, in the case of the Board, supervised more
> >closely. Maybe
> >a finance committee meeting in Hobbs might have caught
> >this earlier.
> >My big question is, if Dennis Wright knew about this,
> >why didn't he say
> >anything to the Board? Maybe Board presence and working
> >more closely
> >(in a proximate fashion) might have fostered a climate
> >where he was
> >able to report this earlier, when it was only a l'ittle'
> >problem.
> >
> >There are a whole bunch of better locations than Hobbs,
> >in terms of
> >ease of access for visitors/volunteers. The Denver
> >area is just one
> >example.
> >
> >Janice Armstrong
> >
> >Jack wrote:
> >> COLIN LAMB wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Ford just did a massive restructuring - it is
> >> > headquarted in a large city. I bet one of the executives
> >>>that was just
> >> > terminated would not mind moving to Hobbs to start
> >>>anew.
> >>
> >>
> >> Particularly if he is a bit of a recluse.
> >>
> >> One would expect that there are hundreds of qualified
> >>people within an
> >> hour or two drive of the Denver area, for example,
> >>who might be
> >> interested -- if they didn't have to move their families
> >>to Hobbs NM.
> >>
> >> Does the perfect hire exist somewhere out there? No
> >>doubt. Does s/he
> >> want to move to Hobbs NM? Doubt.
> >>
> >>
> >> Jack
> >
> >
>
>
>

[BB]

SAM 303a wrote:
>... 'what do we get from the SSA?' My
> soaring is dependent on my wife's support, my club, the FAI, the SRA, and
> the SSA, in that order. Maybe there's a problem with the value equation.
>

I think there is a misperception here, albeit a common one. Your -- and
my -- soaring is first and foremost dependent on the FAA, and without
the SSA's advocacy we would have been regulated out of the sky long
ago. As a concrete example, look at how many regulations have glider
exemptions. Every one of them was won by long and hard working SSA
volunteers backed up by the SSA organization. And I'm sad to reflect on
how much better things could be if we had a stronger organization.

It's funny that most people don't mention it often, but I'd rate this
the number one thing we get out of a national organization.

John Cochrane BB

[SAM 303a]

Beg to differ, if wifey says 'no' it don't happen ;-)

Your point below "won by long and hard working SSA volunteers backed up by
the SSA organization" raises the question "if volunteers did so much of the
work, is the SSA necessary or could some other organization back
volunteers?"

Also interesting that if I wasn't married and there was no FAA there'd be no
one to say "no".



"BB" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> SAM 303a wrote:
> >... 'what do we get from the SSA?' My
> > soaring is dependent on my wife's support, my club, the FAI, the SRA,
and
> > the SSA, in that order. Maybe there's a problem with the value
equation.
> >
>
> I think there is a misperception here, albeit a common one. Your -- and
> my -- soaring is first and foremost dependent on the FAA, and without
> the SSA's advocacy we would have been regulated out of the sky long
> ago. As a concrete example, look at how many regulations have glider
> exemptions. Every one of them was won by long and hard working SSA
> volunteers backed up by the SSA organization. And I'm sad to reflect on
> how much better things could be if we had a stronger organization.
>
> It's funny that most people don't mention it often, but I'd rate this
> the number one thing we get out of a national organization.
>
> John Cochrane BB
>

[Ian Cant]

At 15:01 25 September 2006, Sam 303a wrote:
>Which of the many things that need doing will you do?

Whatever is most urgent and necessary and short of
other volunteers.

How about all the rest of us ?

Ian

[Ian Cant]

John,
Completely agree with you. Unified representation
is vital to our sport. If the SSA were to vanish tomorrow,
we'd have to re-create it for this alone. Making it
more effective would be an easier approach , though.

Ian






At 16:30 25 September 2006, Bb wrote:
>
>I think there is a misperception here, albeit a common
>one. Your -- and
>my -- soaring is first and foremost dependent on the
>FAA, and without
>the SSA's advocacy we would have been regulated out
>of the sky long
>ago. As a concrete example, look at how many regulations
>have glider
>exemptions. Every one of them was won by long and hard
>working SSA
>volunteers backed up by the SSA organization. And I'm
>sad to reflect on
>how much better things could be if we had a stronger
>organization.
>
>It's funny that most people don't mention it often,
>but I'd rate this
>the number one thing we get out of a national organization.
>
>John Cochrane BB
>
>