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