Dec. 12 SSA Enews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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

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