Dec. 12 SSA Enews

[KM]

I just got the latest SSA E News and I have to make a comment regarding
Jim Skydell's letter and the response from Mike Havener.Jim, I dont
know if you read the posts on RAS (I do seem to recall seeing your name
before) so if you are reading this, thanks for the update on the SSA
finances.I think that the last part of your letter where you mention
the "two camps" of the SSA is a little bit inapropriate.Mike H's
response further serves to drive a wedge in the SSA membership.This is
a pivotal time for the SSA ande I feel the last thing we should be
doing is dividing the membership.The SSA should (And to a greater
degree is) be working to restore confidence and provide value for the
membership dollar.
Mike Haverners childish rant was completely inapropriate and I am
surprised the SSA would alow it in their E News.
K Urban

[Dan and Jan Armstrong]

The E-news was factually inaccurate - "run completely by volunteers".
We had a professional manager who should have set standards,
procedures, & protocols such that there was financial integrity in the
system, and a volunteer board with responsiblity for oversight and
supervision. We have a paid staff.

You either donated to the Eagle Fund or you don't have a grasp of
reality. I get really tired of these black-and-white categorizations.


Janice Armstrong

[Jack]

Dan and Jan Armstrong wrote:
> The E-news was factually inaccurate - "run completely by volunteers".
> We had a professional manager who should have set standards,
> procedures, & protocols such that there was financial integrity in the
> system, and a volunteer board with responsiblity for oversight and
> supervision. We have a paid staff.
>
> You either donated to the Eagle Fund or you don't have a grasp of
> reality. I get really tired of these black-and-white categorizations.


OK, then let's do this discussion all over again:

Survival _is_ a black and white situation;

If you care, then you contribute;

Those who don't care if the SSA survives can definitely
go screw themselves.


Any questions?


Jack

[Ian Cant]

At 18:06 13 December 2006, Jack wrote:
>
>OK, then let's do this discussion all over again:
>
> Survival _is_ a black and white situation;
>
> If you care, then you contribute;
>
> Those who don't care if the SSA survives can definitely
> go screw themselves.
>
>
>Any questions?
>


Yes, Jack, one little question: if a large majority,
let's say 11000 out of 12000 members, chooses not to
contribute to the Eagle fund, does that mean that the
bulk of the membership 'don't care' and can expect
at least verbal abuse from the SSA in the future ?


Perhaps that kind of attitude is not conducive to the
long-term survival of the SSA. Perhaps there is a
better way to behave and to get things done both efficiently
and in a civilized manner.

Ian

[Jack]

Ian Cant wrote:

> Yes, Jack, one little question: if a large majority,
> let's say 11000 out of 12000 members, chooses not to
> contribute to the Eagle fund, does that mean that the
> bulk of the membership 'don't care' and can expect
> at least verbal abuse from the SSA in the future?
>
> Perhaps that kind of attitude is not conducive to the
> long-term survival of the SSA. Perhaps there is a
> better way to behave and to get things done both efficiently
> and in a civilized manner.

I think the SSA has been very civil and very thorough in dealing with
this matter, overall. I see no verbal abuse from the SSA or from anyone
else printed in their mailings, e- or otherwise.

Whether the decision to print Skydell's and Havener's letters apparently
verbatim was wise or not is inconsequential. What I take issue with is
exactly the sort of vindictive anti-SSA attitude that both Skydell and
Havener have come out against, and from which the OP to whom I responded
is diverting attention by whining about the fact that differences of
opinion exist. If she has trouble with expressions of loyalty in the
rough and tumble of the public forum, perhaps some other activity that
requires neither loyalty nor even enlightened self-interest would be
more appropriate for her.


Jack

[Jack]

KM wrote:

> I think that the last part of [Skydell's] letter where [he] mention[s]
> the "two camps" of the SSA is a little bit inappropriate. Mike H's
> response further serves to drive a wedge in the SSA membership. This is
> a pivotal time for the SSA and I feel the last thing we should be
> doing is dividing the membership. The SSA should (And to a greater
> degree is) be working to restore confidence and provide value for the
> membership dollar.

Yes, I agree, the SSA _is_ working to restore confidence and provide value.

The divisions in the membership will hardly be widened simply by calling
attention to them. They do exist, but so often only because of some very
narrow thinking. There have always been some members and some non- or
former- members who have enjoyed taking potshots at the organization --
sometimes deserved, often not deserved, simply because they are negative
personalities. These are the types that I believe Havener agreed can be
done without, and who should be ignored as worthless and worse.

If you want a viable, valuable, SSA, then step up and contribute --
time, talent, money -- what have you.


> Mike Haverners childish rant was completely inapropriate and I am
> surprised the SSA would alow it in their E News.

On rereading it I find it to be pretty harmless, but it sure has brought
the whole thing to the surface again, hasn't it? And, it's given us all
an opportunity to rethink any initially negative reactions to the need
for our assistance as the SSA restructures itself. An organization
doesn't build or rebuild itself. We do it. If some don't want to
contribute, fine -- the benefits of membership are deserved by those who do.

Those who think they can do better are always welcome to try. For some
reason there has been a dearth of contenders.


Jack

[Tony Verhulst]

> If you want a viable, valuable, SSA, then step up and contribute --
> time, talent, money -- what have you.

First, you have to decide that the SSA is worth saving and that you're
not simply throwing good money/talent after bad. Let's see, in the
recent history....

In 2003 it was discovered that SSA president Larry Sanderson used his
SSA corporate credit card for personal expenses in excess of $12,000
which he "forgot" to repay until confronted with it. Instead of
prosecuting him, the SSA allowed him to resign with a "golden parachute"
of several months pay.

Before that, there were problems/irregularities procuring a new computer
system that wound up costing us $250,000 when it should have been a
fraction of that.

And most recently we have an employee (since arrested) that decided not
to file with the IRS and pay required taxes due. It gets better - no one
found out about it for 4 years.

I agree that the SSA is worth saving and will continue to support it.
But, If some one decides otherwise, I doubt if I could mount an
effective defense.

Tony V. LS6-b "6N"

[Jack]

Tony Verhulst wrote:

> First, you have to decide that the SSA is worth saving and that you're
> not simply throwing good money/talent after bad.

[....]

> I agree that the SSA is worth saving and will continue to support it.
> But, If some one decides otherwise, I doubt if I could mount an
> effective defense.


I think that it simply comes down to the choice between living in the
past and looking toward the future. Some continually choose the former
-- who knows why?

The selection of officers and regional reps must in the future be done
with a view toward keeping plenty of daylight on the workings of the
organization, having learned from the hard lessons of the past. But,
always, moving toward a better future.

With all this ranting, I may have to write another check just to let off
some steam. Ah, but here is a better way to do it -- online:

<http://www.ssa.org/society/eaglefund.asp>.

Click the "online" link at the end of the Eagle Fund message, and use
your credit card.



Jack

[Greg Arnold]

Jack wrote:
> Tony Verhulst wrote:
>
>> First, you have to decide that the SSA is worth saving and that you're
>> not simply throwing good money/talent after bad.
>
> [....]
>
>> I agree that the SSA is worth saving and will continue to support it.
>> But, If some one decides otherwise, I doubt if I could mount an
>> effective defense.
>
>
> I think that it simply comes down to the choice between living in the
> past and looking toward the future. Some continually choose the former
> -- who knows why?

What is that saying -- those who don't learn from the past are doomed to
repeat it? The SSA has some structural problems, and unless they are
solved the SSA's recent past could be a good prediction of its future.

>
> The selection of officers and regional reps must in the future be done
> with a view toward keeping plenty of daylight on the workings of the
> organization, having learned from the hard lessons of the past.

Ah, so the past IS relevant!

But,
> always, moving toward a better future.
>
> With all this ranting, I may have to write another check just to let off
> some steam. Ah, but here is a better way to do it -- online:
>
> <http://www.ssa.org/society/eaglefund.asp>.
>
> Click the "online" link at the end of the Eagle Fund message, and use
> your credit card.
>
>
>
> Jack
>

[Jack]

Greg Arnold wrote:

> What is that saying -- those who don't learn from the past are doomed to
> repeat it? The SSA has some structural problems, and unless they are
> solved the SSA's recent past could be a good prediction of its future.

No argument there.


>> The selection of officers and regional reps must in the future be done
>> with a view toward keeping plenty of daylight on the workings of the
>> organization, having learned from the hard lessons of the past.
>
> Ah, so the past IS relevant!

Only if you grow out of it.


>> <http://www.ssa.org/society/eaglefund.asp>.
>>
>> Click the "online" link at the end of the Eagle Fund message, and use
>> your credit card.


Jack

[Tony Verhulst]

> And most recently we have an employee (since arrested) that decided not
> to file with the IRS and pay required taxes due. It gets better - no one
> found out about it for 4 years.

Oh yeah, and add that(alleged) embezzlement of over $150,000.

Tony V

[Bullwinkle]

On 12/13/06 11:02 AM, in article
, "Jack"
> wrote:

> Dan and Jan Armstrong wrote:
>> The E-news was factually inaccurate - "run completely by volunteers".
>> We had a professional manager who should have set standards,
>> procedures, & protocols such that there was financial integrity in the
>> system, and a volunteer board with responsiblity for oversight and
>> supervision. We have a paid staff.
>>
>> You either donated to the Eagle Fund or you don't have a grasp of
>> reality. I get really tired of these black-and-white categorizations.
>
>
> OK, then let's do this discussion all over again:
>
> Survival _is_ a black and white situation;
>
> If you care, then you contribute;
>
> Those who don't care if the SSA survives can definitely
> go screw themselves.
>
>
> Any questions?
>
>
> Jack
>
Here's my bottom line on this situation. Just my humble opinion, take it for
what it's worth, etc.

Trust is a highly volatile commodity. Once lost, it is very hard to get
back, and can't be earned quickly.

Having the very same people who led us into this situation (or, to be more
charitable, failed to detect this situation for several years) say "we'll
lead you out of this mess" doesn't reassure me.

Once every member of the current BOD and Officers/Exec Comm have rotated
out, and we have a complete new leadership team, then trust can begin to be
earned again.

Until then I won't be giving extra money to a group led by individuals that
have demonstrated they can't safeguard it.

That doesn't mean I don't like soaring: I do, very much. It doesn't mean I
don't like the SSA and what it tries to accomplish: I do. I doesn't mean
that I won't support the SSA again in the future, or renew my membership: I
will.

It just means I will be careful about where I send my discretionary money.
Right now, MSF and the ARC seem like better charities for my end of year
giving.

If some (like those who wrote the letters in the SSA News) think less of me
for that, well, I can't help that. People who see the world in
black-and-white are not people whose opinions I value.

Respectfully,
Bullwinkle

[KM]

Jack wrote:

>
>
> The divisions in the membership will hardly be widened simply by calling
> attention to them.

This is a good point Jack.Let me clarify my original post.I felt that
the sugestion that those who are not contributing to the Eagle fund are
screwing themselves (and therefore all of us) is off base.It creates an
us against them mentality that the SSA does not need.


> If you want a viable, valuable, SSA, then step up and contribute --
> time, talent, money -- what have you.

Jack, this really struck a nerve with me.I have been on the phone with
the people in Hobbs a few times the past couple of months.Whenever I
ask about what could be done to help or contribute, the answers I got
gave me the impression that the SSA is a good ol boy network and it was
bussiness as usual.In other words, if you didnt have a prominent
position in the sport, like a big name contest pilot or bussiness
owner, they didnt want to hear from you.One of the ladies I spoke to in
Hobbs redily admited that a certain person on the magazine staff was
unqualified to hold his position but because he had been at it so long
they never thought to replace him.
As far as contributing $$$$, I think there is alot of SSA members out
there who are taking a wait and see attitude before the plunk down
anything more than their dues.

>
> > Mike Haverners childish rant was completely inapropriate and I am
> > surprised the SSA would alow it in their E News.
>
> On rereading it I find it to be pretty harmless, but it sure has brought
> the whole thing to the surface again, hasn't it?

Harmless? Maybe, accurate? NO. Mikes assumption that one person could
drive the sport into the dirt was just rediculous.He also ignores the
fact that our former CFO had plenty of help in the form of lack of
oversight.The rest of his letter was just as sophmoric and he has a
poor choice of words.

> Those who think they can do better are always welcome to try. For some
> reason there has been a dearth of contenders.

Here we go again Jack! Just because a person is a member of an
organization like SSA or EAA or AOPA or whatever doesnt mean that he or
she needs to feel qualified to run it.A member has the right to expect
a certain return from his dues money.If a member would like to see
certain changes or considerations it shouldnt mean he has to take over
and run for director.The SSA is either going to listen to its members
and govern accordingly or its not.There isnt anything most of us are
able to do about that.

>
>
> Jack

Respectfully,
K Urban

[Dan Peters]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I've heard a
lot of questioning as to whether the SSA should be
allowed to continue or to let it collapse. People
have cited a lot of issues in SSA's past.

What about this idea: move the SSA to an organization
under the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Assoc.) similar
to the the IAC (aerobatics), vintage airplanes, and
warplanes sub-organizations. The EAA seems to be a
very soundly run organization and can add more stability
to the SSA. Maybe the SSA would have more resources
available to use? Maybe the SSA could benefit from
EAA negotiated discounts like publication costs? Maybe
gliders would benefit from the bigger political tout
the EAA seems to have? Our dues would be more expensive
- my EAA dues are around $40-$50, and I have to pay
extra dues to join one of the sub-organizations.

Just a wild idea.

Dan
LS-4, '45'


At 03:24 14 December 2006, Tony Verhulst wrote:
>
>> And most recently we have an employee (since arrested)
>>that decided not
>> to file with the IRS and pay required taxes due. It
>>gets better - no one
>> found out about it for 4 years.
>
>Oh yeah, and add that(alleged) embezzlement of over
>$150,000.
>
>Tony V
>

[Tony Verhulst]

> What about this idea: move the SSA to an organization
> under the EAA (Experimental Aircraft Assoc.).....

> Just a wild idea.

This has been discussed many times in this forum. Check the archives and
you'll get a pretty good idea of the pros and cons.

Tony V
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

[Robert Hart]

KM wrote:
> Here we go again Jack! Just because a person is a member of an
> organization like SSA or EAA or AOPA or whatever doesnt mean that he or
> she needs to feel qualified to run it.A member has the right to expect
> a certain return from his dues money.If a member would like to see
> certain changes or considerations it shouldnt mean he has to take over
> and run for director.The SSA is either going to listen to its members
> and govern accordingly or its not.There isnt anything most of us are
> able to do about that.

I have been following from Australia, with sympathetic interest, the
trials and tribulations through which the SSA is currently travelling.

Here in Australia our circumstances are somewhat different, but the
issue of the perception of the organisation being run by an 'in crowd'
not listening to the membership is one criticism that has been levelled
at the organisations in both countries. Part of the problem (not shared
by you in the USA) is that the GFA has delegated authority from CASA
(our equivalent of your FAA) for operations and air worthiness and this
creates tensions between the paternalistic 'rule setting and compliance'
part of the organisation and the sporting (particularly sport
development) parts of the organisation.

Over the past few years, the Qld regional organisation (one of the
regional 5 members of the federation) has been extremely critical of the
GFA in regards to the poor communication with the membership. At an
annual meeting of the Qld regional organisation in 2005, the then
president of the national organisation received a very confrontational
grilling. It was significant though that the national president attended
the meeting, despite the foreknowledge that it was likely to be fairly
heated.

From that meeting a number of proposals flowed to open up the
communications channels - and whilst not all were accepted by the Board
of the GFA some were and change started to happen and that is growing.
There have also been a number of changes in personnel at the Board and
Executive level (all volunteers) that have assisted this growing change
in attitude.

I cannot offer you any advice (I don't know enough about your
organisation to do so even if I wanted to) apart from the observation
that, like the GFA here in Australia, the SSA is the _members'_
organisation. It is thus very much up to the members to make it what
they want.

You can't sit on the sidelines and criticise - you have to get involved
if you want change to happen. That is what has happened to me - I was
elected the Queensland regional representative to the GFA Board earlier
this year.

--
Robert Hart
+61 (0)438 385 533 http://www.hart.wattle.id.au

[Jack]

KM wrote:


> Jack Wrote:

>> Those who think they can do better are always welcome to try. For some
>> reason there has been a dearth of contenders.
>
> Here we go again Jack! Just because a person is a member of an
> organization like SSA or EAA or AOPA or whatever doesnt mean that he or
> she needs to feel qualified to run it. A member has the right to expect
> a certain return from his dues money. If a member would like to see
> certain changes or considerations it shouldnt mean he has to take over
> and run for director. The SSA is either going to listen to its members
> and govern accordingly or its not. There isnt anything most of us are
> able to do about that.

KM,

There are no other organizations vying for our membership dues and the
opportunity to represent our sport, that I have heard of: none who wish
to take us under their wing, nor is there a new organization being
formed to supplant SSA, to my knowledge. As I said, there are no other
contenders.

If individuals wish to withhold their support from the organization,
that is their choice. Of course, the organization will welcome them back
with open arms whenever they tire of their tantrums. Too bad. In any
event, SSA will do well enough without their support in the interim as,
according to recent reports, financial support is pouring in from many
who understand what it takes to rebuild for a better future.

Ultimately, each member does have the power necessary to create the a
better SSA. I predict it will be, as in the past, for the most part
ignored. We have a democratically structured organization with reps from
each region to carry our demands, whether for effective oversight of
expenditures, or realistic competition rule-making, to the board -- and
to make sure that the board carries out it responsibilities properly.
This power always existed. The membership has been every bit as
uninterested in the oversight that only it can exercise as we have
accused the folks in Hobbs of being.

Do you expect that to change? And if not, what do you foresee for the SSA?


Jack

[Jack]

Bullwinkle wrote:

> It just means I will be careful about where I send my discretionary money.
> Right now, MSF and the ARC seem like better charities for my end of year
> giving.

They are, charitably speaking.


> People who see the world in black-and-white are not people
> whose opinions I value.

We live in a gray world, but actions tend to be black and white. You
can't both support and not support. You can, however, support a little
more or less than you might have.

That's all it takes.


Jack

[KM]

Jack wrote:
> KM,
>
> There are no other organizations vying for our membership dues and the
> opportunity to represent our sport, that I have heard of: none who wish
> to take us under their wing, nor is there a new organization being
> formed to supplant SSA, to my knowledge. As I said, there are no other
> contenders.
>
> If individuals wish to withhold their support from the organization,
> that is their choice. Of course, the organization will welcome them back
> with open arms whenever they tire of their tantrums.

Jack, as usual you have some good points.I dont think it is so much a
tantrum as it is running out of pateince.From talking to people in
Hobbs and some of the Old Timers around here I get the impresion that
the SSA IS more of a good ol boy club than an organization for and
about its members.In the best interest of the SSA they could stand to
provide something for everyone.How many times have you heard "If I dont
fly badges or contests theres nothing in it for me".Now ask yourself
Jack, does it really need to be this way?

>
> Ultimately, each member does have the power necessary to create the a
> better SSA.

Here is the way I look at it.I work hard as a volunteer to create a
better sport.And I do think every pilot has it in his or her power to
do this.Wether or not my efforts will tricle down to the SSA, I really
dont care.


> This power always existed. The membership has been every bit as
> uninterested in the oversight that only it can exercise as we have
> accused the folks in Hobbs of being.
>
> Do you expect that to change? And if not, what do you foresee for the SSA?

I dont know what to forsee for the SSA. I do think that soaring is
still a viable sport in this country, even with the decline in activity
and high costs and all.So one way or another, the sport WILL be
represented by a national organization.I cant really say if that will
be the SSA or someone else.

>
>
> Jack

Happy Holidays,
K Urban