SSA INVESTIGATION

The most recent note to members from the board answers some questions but raises many more.

there seem to be two operative theories being investigated:
1. incompetence then panic resulted in the cfo and the ED knowingly conspiring to withhold information and to actually present false reports. Non payment of obligations was due to a shortfall in available cash and they incompetently choose to hide the situation rather than to cut costs.
2. The money was misappropriated (stolen) and disappeared into someones pocket. This was covered up for years by falsifying financials.

the note states "
Your first letter reported that the CFAO claimed his reason for making a unilateral decision not to pay withholding taxes was because of "...a lack of available cash on hand..." Does the Executive Committee believe this?

No. This is why a thorough investigation is underway. "

I guess the board feels #2 is the way things are headed.



We have yet to hear about the status of funds that are sequestered in restricted and unrestricted special accounts for the purpose of furthering special programs. These accounts are not consolidated in the general financial reporting. The first note suggested that these accounts could be a source of emergency funding to pay back taxes.

the note goes on"

SSA Bylaws require a yearly audit. When was this last accomplished?

Our accountants accomplished the last audit on October 31, 2002.

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 has now public stated that it acted in direct violation of the formal bylaws of the organization. To the extent that the board willfully and knowingly took an action that was outside the bounds of its authority, it is probably liable for damages on a personal level.

Organizations often have insurance policies to protect shareholders/members from illegal acts by officers/boards. I wonder if SSA has such coverage? Of course, the insurance company would, after paying, go after the deep pockets of any involved.

Likewise, the accountants probably have E&O insurance.



OK here is the point... The SSA needs to file for bankruptcy and to be reorganized. A master needs to be appointed by the court to investigate and to vigorously pursue any and all avenues to recapture the lost funds if in fact they were stolen and if in fact that theft was facilitated by an illegal action by the board. To have the board oversee the investigation is a basic conflict of interest and may result in one avenue of recourse being ignored. I simply cannot see the board voting to sue itself individually or as a group.

it is a shame that the decision, taken in 2003, not to have an audit as required by the bylaws, is going to come back to haunt those who made the decision.



we have already seen what happens when the fox is left to guard the henhouse..

*/SSA Bylaws require a yearly audit. When was this last accomplished? /*

**Our accountants accomplished the last audit on October 31, 2002.

*/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 tone of this part of the SSA answer is not encouraging. From
reading this, you would think that the decision not to follow the bylaws
was a business decision like any other -- "the Board decided not to
spend money on audits". In fact, however, the Board was required by law
to follow the bylaws, and it intentionally decided not to do so. It did
not have the discretion to decide whether or not to spend money on
audits, so the failure to do annual audits was not merely a matter of
"penny wise, and pound foolish." Either the Board still does not
understand this, or it is madly spinning the facts. Perhaps this
language was written by lawyers, who are professional fact spinners, but
why didn't anyone on the Board put their foot down and say "Hey, we have
to be honest with our members?"



The board has now public stated that it acted in direct violation of
the formal bylaws of the organization. To the extent that the board
willfully and knowingly took an action that was outside the bounds of
its authority, it is probably liable for damages on a personal level.

5-BG wrote:
The most recent note to members from the board answers some questions but raises many more.

there seem to be two operative theories being investigated:
1. incompetence then panic resulted in the cfo and the ED knowingly conspiring to withhold information and to actually present false reports. Non payment of obligations was due to a shortfall in available cash and they incompetently choose to hide the situation rather than to cut costs.
2. The money was misappropriated (stolen) and disappeared into someones pocket. This was covered up for years by falsifying financials.

the note states "
Your first letter reported that the CFAO claimed his reason for making a unilateral decision not to pay withholding taxes was because of "...a lack of available cash on hand..." Does the Executive Committee believe this?

No. This is why a thorough investigation is underway. "

I guess the board feels #2 is the way things are headed.



We have yet to hear about the status of funds that are sequestered in restricted and unrestricted special accounts for the purpose of furthering special programs. These accounts are not consolidated in the general financial reporting. The first note suggested that these accounts could be a source of emergency funding to pay back taxes.

the note goes on"

SSA Bylaws require a yearly audit. When was this last accomplished?

Our accountants accomplished the last audit on October 31, 2002.

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 has now public stated that it acted in direct violation of the formal bylaws of the organization. To the extent that the board willfully and knowingly took an action that was outside the bounds of its authority, it is probably liable for damages on a personal level.

Organizations often have insurance policies to protect shareholders/members from illegal acts by officers/boards. I wonder if SSA has such coverage? Of course, the insurance company would, after paying, go after the deep pockets of any involved.

Likewise, the accountants probably have E&O insurance.



OK here is the point... The SSA needs to file for bankruptcy and to be reorganized. A master needs to be appointed by the court to investigate and to vigorously pursue any and all avenues to recapture the lost funds if in fact they were stolen and if in fact that theft was facilitated by an illegal action by the board. To have the board oversee the investigation is a basic conflict of interest and may result in one avenue of recourse being ignored. I simply cannot see the board voting to sue itself individually or as a group.

it is a shame that the decision, taken in 2003, not to have an audit as required by the bylaws, is going to come back to haunt those who made the decision.



we have already seen what happens when the fox is left to guard the henhouse..

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C6D333.BC529780
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Google-AttachSize: 4413

!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
HTMLHEAD
META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"
META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR
STYLE/STYLE
/HEAD
BODY bgColor=#ffffff
DIVFONT face=Arial  The most recent note to members from the board
answers some questions but raises many more./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial there seem to be two operative theories being
investigated:/FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial1. incompetence then panic resulted in the cfo and the ED
knowingly conspiring to withhold information and to actually present false 
reports. Non payment of obligations  was due to a shortfall in available
cash and they incompetently choose to hide the situation rather than to cut
costs./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial2. The money was misappropriated (stolen) and disappeared
into someones pocket. This was covered up for years  by falsifying
financials./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial  the note states "
PEMSTRONGYour first letter reported that the CFAO claimed his reason for
making a unilateral decision not to pay withholding taxes was because of "...a
lack of available cash on hand..." Does the Executive Committee believe
this?/STRONG/EM/P
PSTRONG/STRONGNo. This is why a thorough investigation is underway. "/P
P  I guess the board feels #2 is the way things are headed./P
P /P
P   We have yet to hear about the status of funds that are
sequestered in restricted and unrestricted special accounts for the purpose of
furthering special programs. These accounts are  not consolidated in the
general financial reporting.  The first note suggested that these accounts
could be a source of emergency funding  to pay back taxes. /P
P    the note goes on"/P
PSTRONGEMSSA Bylaws require a yearly audit. When was this last
accomplished? /EM/STRONG/P
PSTRONG/STRONGOur accountants accomplished the last audit on October 31,
2002. /P
PSTRONGEMWhy has an audit (or outside financial review) not been done
since 2002? /EM/STRONG/P
PSTRONG/STRONGThe 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. "/P
P /P
P  The board has now public stated that it acted in direct violation of
the formal bylaws of the organization. To the extent that the board willfully
and knowingly took an action that was outside the bounds of its authority, it is
probably liable for damages on a personal level. /P
P  Organizations often have insurance policies to protect
shareholders/members from illegal acts by officers/boards. I wonder if SSA has
such coverage? Of course, the insurance company would, after paying, go after
the deep pockets of any involved./P
P  Likewise, the accountants probably have E&O insurance. /P
P /P
P  OK here is the point... The SSA needs to file for bankruptcy and to be
reorganized. A master needs to be appointed by the court to investigate and to
vigorously pursue any and all avenues to recapture the lost funds if in fact
they were stolen and if in fact that theft was facilitated by an illegal action
by the board. To have the board oversee the investigation is a basic conflict of
interest and may result in one avenue of recourse being ignored. I simply cannot
see the board voting to sue itself individually or as a group. /P
P  it is a shame that the decision, taken in 2003, not to have an audit
as required by the bylaws, is going to come back to haunt those who made the
decision. /P
P /P
P  we have already seen what happens when the fox is left to guard the
henhouse.. /FONT/P/DIV/BODY/HTML

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C6D333.BC529780--
5bg,
Well put.I feel that if Dennis Wright and the whole board down through
the regional level does not resign, they are just greedy (or
incompetent) and they do not have the best interests of soaring or the
SSA in mind.

FWIW, and I don't know precisely how this applies to non-profits, but in
the corporate world, corporate officers are PERSONALLY LIABLE for
payroll taxes. Not even BK will get you out of them.

Bob


alice wrote:
5-BG wrote:
The most recent note to members from the board answers some questions but raises many more.

there seem to be two operative theories being investigated:
1. incompetence then panic resulted in the cfo and the ED knowingly conspiring to withhold information and to actually present false reports. Non payment of obligations was due to a shortfall in available cash and they incompetently choose to hide the situation rather than to cut costs.
2. The money was misappropriated (stolen) and disappeared into someones pocket. This was covered up for years by falsifying financials.

the note states "
Your first letter reported that the CFAO claimed his reason for making a unilateral decision not to pay withholding taxes was because of "...a lack of available cash on hand..." Does the Executive Committee believe this?

No. This is why a thorough investigation is underway. "

I guess the board feels #2 is the way things are headed.



We have yet to hear about the status of funds that are sequestered in restricted and unrestricted special accounts for the purpose of furthering special programs. These accounts are not consolidated in the general financial reporting. The first note suggested that these accounts could be a source of emergency funding to pay back taxes.

the note goes on"

SSA Bylaws require a yearly audit. When was this last accomplished?

Our accountants accomplished the last audit on October 31, 2002.

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 has now public stated that it acted in direct violation of the formal bylaws of the organization. To the extent that the board willfully and knowingly took an action that was outside the bounds of its authority, it is probably liable for damages on a personal level.

Organizations often have insurance policies to protect shareholders/members from illegal acts by officers/boards. I wonder if SSA has such coverage? Of course, the insurance company would, after paying, go after the deep pockets of any involved.

Likewise, the accountants probably have E&O insurance.



OK here is the point... The SSA needs to file for bankruptcy and to be reorganized. A master needs to be appointed by the court to investigate and to vigorously pursue any and all avenues to recapture the lost funds if in fact they were stolen and if in fact that theft was facilitated by an illegal action by the board. To have the board oversee the investigation is a basic conflict of interest and may result in one avenue of recourse being ignored. I simply cannot see the board voting to sue itself individually or as a group.

it is a shame that the decision, taken in 2003, not to have an audit as required by the bylaws, is going to come back to haunt those who made the decision.



we have already seen what happens when the fox is left to guard the henhouse..

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C6D333.BC529780
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Google-AttachSize: 4413

!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
HTMLHEAD
META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"
META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR
STYLE/STYLE
/HEAD
BODY bgColor=#ffffff
DIVFONT face=Arial  The most recent note to members from the board
answers some questions but raises many more./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial there seem to be two operative theories being
investigated:/FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial1. incompetence then panic resulted in the cfo and the ED
knowingly conspiring to withhold information and to actually present false 
reports. Non payment of obligations  was due to a shortfall in available
cash and they incompetently choose to hide the situation rather than to cut
costs./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial2. The money was misappropriated (stolen) and disappeared
into someones pocket. This was covered up for years  by falsifying
financials./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial  the note states "
PEMSTRONGYour first letter reported that the CFAO claimed his reason for
making a unilateral decision not to pay withholding taxes was because of "...a
lack of available cash on hand..." Does the Executive Committee believe
this?/STRONG/EM/P
PSTRONG/STRONGNo. This is why a thorough investigation is underway. "/P
P  I guess the board feels #2 is the way things are headed./P
P /P
P   We have yet to hear about the status of funds that are
sequestered in restricted and unrestricted special accounts for the purpose of
furthering special programs. These accounts are  not consolidated in the
general financial reporting.  The first note suggested that these accounts
could be a source of emergency funding  to pay back taxes. /P
P    the note goes on"/P
PSTRONGEMSSA Bylaws require a yearly audit. When was this last
accomplished? /EM/STRONG/P
PSTRONG/STRONGOur accountants accomplished the last audit on October 31,
2002. /P
PSTRONGEMWhy has an audit (or outside financial review) not been done
since 2002? /EM/STRONG/P
PSTRONG/STRONGThe 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. "/P
P /P
P  The board has now public stated that it acted in direct violation of
the formal bylaws of the organization. To the extent that the board willfully
and knowingly took an action that was outside the bounds of its authority, it is
probably liable for damages on a personal level. /P
P  Organizations often have insurance policies to protect
shareholders/members from illegal acts by officers/boards. I wonder if SSA has
such coverage? Of course, the insurance company would, after paying, go after
the deep pockets of any involved./P
P  Likewise, the accountants probably have E&O insurance. /P
P /P
P  OK here is the point... The SSA needs to file for bankruptcy and to be
reorganized. A master needs to be appointed by the court to investigate and to
vigorously pursue any and all avenues to recapture the lost funds if in fact
they were stolen and if in fact that theft was facilitated by an illegal action
by the board. To have the board oversee the investigation is a basic conflict of
interest and may result in one avenue of recourse being ignored. I simply cannot
see the board voting to sue itself individually or as a group. /P
P  it is a shame that the decision, taken in 2003, not to have an audit
as required by the bylaws, is going to come back to haunt those who made the
decision. /P
P /P
P  we have already seen what happens when the fox is left to guard the
henhouse.. /FONT/P/DIV/BODY/HTML

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C6D333.BC529780--
5bg,
Well put.I feel that if Dennis Wright and the whole board down through
the regional level does not resign, they are just greedy (or
incompetent) and they do not have the best interests of soaring or the
SSA in mind.

bob;
you are right in terms of officers being responsible.. but I think that this is triggered ONLY AFTER the assets of the organization are liquidated and then the shortfall becomes a personal liability. If i am correct, then the remaining assets of the ssa would be liquidated, payments made to govt and any shortfall would be assessed against those officers.

SOMEONE in this mess is insured.. If only one party among the lot is insured, that party becomes the deep pocket and pays. I suspect that the accountants are insured and that they will be the deep pocket.
BUT this,once again raises the issue of conflict of interests.. how in the world can a firm do an impartial investigation that could conceivably be used against them in a claim??? The very act of doing a forenisic analysis, or even of filing late the back reports is an admission that they did not vigorously do their job in a manner consistant with professional requirements.. especially post enron.

The board needs to stop digging deeper the hole that they are in. If we have learned anything at all from events in Washington, the claims of COVERUP are often worse than the original sin. The board should recognize this at the earliest possible moment and get a master involved so as to avoid even the appearance of coverup. Right now I even question the wisdom of the advice being offered by the outside attorney hired by the board.. JUST WHO IS THE CLIENT??? the board or the members??? If the advice to the board is to "manage the problem" that is, imho, bad advice. The board is digging itself in deeper. This is a no win situation for them as individuals or as a group. Even assuming a well intentioned desire to determine the extent of the problem and then to fix it prior to resigning, IT IS BAD JUDGEMENT for them to remain involved. Knowingly choosing to ignore the bylaws is the issue that puts them at risk and that compromises their ability to oversee an objective investigation. The outside attorney needs to work for a party who represents the members and that has no personal interest in the outcome. The wording of each note is obviously vetted by the attorney. Again, the question arises.. WHO IS THE CLIENT..
"Robert Backer" wrote in message news:QjlMg.18908$RD.8494@fed1read08...
FWIW, and I don't know precisely how this applies to non-profits, but in
the corporate world, corporate officers are PERSONALLY LIABLE for
payroll taxes. Not even BK will get you out of them.

Bob


alice wrote:
5-BG wrote:
The most recent note to members from the board answers some questions but raises many more.

there seem to be two operative theories being investigated:
1. incompetence then panic resulted in the cfo and the ED knowingly conspiring to withhold information and to actually present false reports. Non payment of obligations was due to a shortfall in available cash and they incompetently choose to hide the situation rather than to cut costs.
2. The money was misappropriated (stolen) and disappeared into someones pocket. This was covered up for years by falsifying financials.

the note states "
Your first letter reported that the CFAO claimed his reason for making a unilateral decision not to pay withholding taxes was because of "...a lack of available cash on hand..." Does the Executive Committee believe this?

No. This is why a thorough investigation is underway. "

I guess the board feels #2 is the way things are headed.



We have yet to hear about the status of funds that are sequestered in restricted and unrestricted special accounts for the purpose of furthering special programs. These accounts are not consolidated in the general financial reporting. The first note suggested that these accounts could be a source of emergency funding to pay back taxes.

the note goes on"

SSA Bylaws require a yearly audit. When was this last accomplished?

Our accountants accomplished the last audit on October 31, 2002.

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 has now public stated that it acted in direct violation of the formal bylaws of the organization. To the extent that the board willfully and knowingly took an action that was outside the bounds of its authority, it is probably liable for damages on a personal level.

Organizations often have insurance policies to protect shareholders/members from illegal acts by officers/boards. I wonder if SSA has such coverage? Of course, the insurance company would, after paying, go after the deep pockets of any involved.

Likewise, the accountants probably have E&O insurance.



OK here is the point... The SSA needs to file for bankruptcy and to be reorganized. A master needs to be appointed by the court to investigate and to vigorously pursue any and all avenues to recapture the lost funds if in fact they were stolen and if in fact that theft was facilitated by an illegal action by the board. To have the board oversee the investigation is a basic conflict of interest and may result in one avenue of recourse being ignored. I simply cannot see the board voting to sue itself individually or as a group.

it is a shame that the decision, taken in 2003, not to have an audit as required by the bylaws, is going to come back to haunt those who made the decision.



we have already seen what happens when the fox is left to guard the henhouse..

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C6D333.BC529780
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Google-AttachSize: 4413

!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN"
HTMLHEAD
META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1"
META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2963" name=GENERATOR
STYLE/STYLE
/HEAD
BODY bgColor=#ffffff
DIVFONT face=Arial  The most recent note to members from the board
answers some questions but raises many more./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial there seem to be two operative theories being
investigated:/FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial1. incompetence then panic resulted in the cfo and the ED
knowingly conspiring to withhold information and to actually present false 
reports. Non payment of obligations  was due to a shortfall in available
cash and they incompetently choose to hide the situation rather than to cut
costs./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial2. The money was misappropriated (stolen) and disappeared
into someones pocket. This was covered up for years  by falsifying
financials./FONT/DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial/FONT /DIV
DIVFONT face=Arial  the note states "
PEMSTRONGYour first letter reported that the CFAO claimed his reason for
making a unilateral decision not to pay withholding taxes was because of "...a
lack of available cash on hand..." Does the Executive Committee believe
this?/STRONG/EM/P
PSTRONG/STRONGNo. This is why a thorough investigation is underway. "/P
P  I guess the board feels #2 is the way things are headed./P
P /P
P   We have yet to hear about the status of funds that are
sequestered in restricted and unrestricted special accounts for the purpose of
furthering special programs. These accounts are  not consolidated in the
general financial reporting.  The first note suggested that these accounts
could be a source of emergency funding  to pay back taxes. /P
P    the note goes on"/P
PSTRONGEMSSA Bylaws require a yearly audit. When was this last
accomplished? /EM/STRONG/P
PSTRONG/STRONGOur accountants accomplished the last audit on October 31,
2002. /P
PSTRONGEMWhy has an audit (or outside financial review) not been done
since 2002? /EM/STRONG/P
PSTRONG/STRONGThe 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. "/P
P /P
P  The board has now public stated that it acted in direct violation of
the formal bylaws of the organization. To the extent that the board willfully
and knowingly took an action that was outside the bounds of its authority, it is
probably liable for damages on a personal level. /P
P  Organizations often have insurance policies to protect
shareholders/members from illegal acts by officers/boards. I wonder if SSA has
such coverage? Of course, the insurance company would, after paying, go after
the deep pockets of any involved./P
P  Likewise, the accountants probably have E&O insurance. /P
P /P
P  OK here is the point... The SSA needs to file for bankruptcy and to be
reorganized. A master needs to be appointed by the court to investigate and to
vigorously pursue any and all avenues to recapture the lost funds if in fact
they were stolen and if in fact that theft was facilitated by an illegal action
by the board. To have the board oversee the investigation is a basic conflict of
interest and may result in one avenue of recourse being ignored. I simply cannot
see the board voting to sue itself individually or as a group. /P
P  it is a shame that the decision, taken in 2003, not to have an audit
as required by the bylaws, is going to come back to haunt those who made the
decision. /P
P /P
P  we have already seen what happens when the fox is left to guard the
henhouse.. /FONT/P/DIV/BODY/HTML

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01C6D333.BC529780--
5bg,
Well put.I feel that if Dennis Wright and the whole board down through
the regional level does not resign, they are just greedy (or
incompetent) and they do not have the best interests of soaring or the
SSA in mind.

LET US START RIGHT HERE AND NOW!

I do pledge my former dues amount ($65) for a newly formed Soaring
Association. We have had constitutional conventions in this country
before and can do it again. The only requirement is for the current
group--ALL of them down to whoever cleans the office in NM--need to go.

Our former SSA was driven off the cliff over many, many years. Most of
the directors and volunteers names have not changed since I took my
first glider flight in 1979. Those that got us here are not the ones to
make it better.

Disgusted,

Terry Claussen
FAA Designated Flight Instructor Examiner Glider
Former SSAI# 922214

Terry wrote:
LET US START RIGHT HERE AND NOW!


Our former SSA was driven off the cliff over many, many years. Most of
the directors and volunteers names have not changed since I took my
first glider flight in 1979. Those that got us here are not the ones to
make it better.

Disgusted,

Terry Claussen
FAA Designated Flight Instructor Examiner Glider
Former SSAI# 922214

Hey Terry,

First, let me say that the current situation makes me sick. It makes
me sick because a) the events are in and of themselves disgusting and
because b) the SSA Board members who I know are hard-working,
dedicated, and innovative. Before you fire back, let's look at the
facts in your statement: "Most of the directors and volunteers (sic)
names have not changed since I took my first glider flight in 1979. "

I've been a member since 1984. I can hardly find one name on the
current list of directors who goes back that far. So, giving you a
little poetic license, let's go back 10 years. From the 1996 Board
Meeting in Kansas City, I did a little look-see at the list of 20
Regional Directors then vs. now. Wanna guess how many are the same?
Hint: It's less than 10. Need a second hint: It's less than 5.
Third hint: it's an even number. That's right, exactly 4 of the
Regional Directors have a tenure going back even 10 years. So, 80% of
the Board is new within that period. At least a third of the Board
goes back less than 5 years from what I was able to figure.

A couple of other interesting observations:

- In recent elections, a significant percentage of Directors ran
unopposed. So, our members must not be very disatisfied with the
Board, otherwise they would have stepped up and run for office
themselves, right?
- There is currently at least 1 position vacant. Surprising given the
glamor and wealth associated with the position.
- There are 6 slots which expire 12/31/2006.
- At no time do I see anyone named Terry Claussen running for
Director. Nor for that matter, does that name appear under any of the
numerous volunteer positions. Interestingly, neither do the names of
a lot of the usual, vocal critics of the SSA.

Okay, so that last one is a little bit of a low blow. But either
you've been a non-participant in the electoral affairs of the
organization or you just haven't been paying much attention to the
outcome.

Why does this matter? Well, it seems to me that we all owe it to the
Board to sort this out before we launch a lynch mob. I would imagine
that there are a few specific individuals who have some serious
'splainin to do. It's obvious from the second update that the Board
is moving to rapidly hone in on the details. How about we ask the
court of public opinion to recess for a little while to see what comes
next. It's obviously not the same old Board...

Regards,
Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

Erik,
Thank you for your post. It is a welcome change from the "they're
all crooks" theme that seems so prevalent on this discussion group.

Horst
L33

Eric

Amen to what you said. I could not agree with you more, especially about
some of the board members that we both know. They do not seserve the link
mob!!!

Brian
"Papa3" wrote in message
oups.com...

Terry wrote:
LET US START RIGHT HERE AND NOW!


Our former SSA was driven off the cliff over many, many years. Most of
the directors and volunteers names have not changed since I took my
first glider flight in 1979. Those that got us here are not the ones to
make it better.

Disgusted,

Terry Claussen
FAA Designated Flight Instructor Examiner Glider
Former SSAI# 922214

Hey Terry,

First, let me say that the current situation makes me sick. It makes
me sick because a) the events are in and of themselves disgusting and
because b) the SSA Board members who I know are hard-working,
dedicated, and innovative. Before you fire back, let's look at the
facts in your statement: "Most of the directors and volunteers (sic)
names have not changed since I took my first glider flight in 1979. "

I've been a member since 1984. I can hardly find one name on the
current list of directors who goes back that far. So, giving you a
little poetic license, let's go back 10 years. From the 1996 Board
Meeting in Kansas City, I did a little look-see at the list of 20
Regional Directors then vs. now. Wanna guess how many are the same?
Hint: It's less than 10. Need a second hint: It's less than 5.
Third hint: it's an even number. That's right, exactly 4 of the
Regional Directors have a tenure going back even 10 years. So, 80% of
the Board is new within that period. At least a third of the Board
goes back less than 5 years from what I was able to figure.

A couple of other interesting observations:

- In recent elections, a significant percentage of Directors ran
unopposed. So, our members must not be very disatisfied with the
Board, otherwise they would have stepped up and run for office
themselves, right?
- There is currently at least 1 position vacant. Surprising given the
glamor and wealth associated with the position.
- There are 6 slots which expire 12/31/2006.
- At no time do I see anyone named Terry Claussen running for
Director. Nor for that matter, does that name appear under any of the
numerous volunteer positions. Interestingly, neither do the names of
a lot of the usual, vocal critics of the SSA.

Okay, so that last one is a little bit of a low blow. But either
you've been a non-participant in the electoral affairs of the
organization or you just haven't been paying much attention to the
outcome.

Why does this matter? Well, it seems to me that we all owe it to the
Board to sort this out before we launch a lynch mob. I would imagine
that there are a few specific individuals who have some serious
'splainin to do. It's obvious from the second update that the Board
is moving to rapidly hone in on the details. How about we ask the
court of public opinion to recess for a little while to see what comes
next. It's obviously not the same old Board...

Regards,
Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

You need to put more skin in the game than just your $65. How much time
and effort are you willing to devote to this? What if there was a
"constitutional convention" and nobody came?

Maby the real problem with the SSA is not the minority of dedicated
volunteers who try to make the organization work, it's the majority of
armchair critics live in their own worlds, unburdened by reality.

Terry wrote:
LET US START RIGHT HERE AND NOW!

I do pledge my former dues amount ($65) for a newly formed Soaring
Association. We have had constitutional conventions in this country
before and can do it again. The only requirement is for the current
group--ALL of them down to whoever cleans the office in NM--need to go.

Our former SSA was driven off the cliff over many, many years. Most of
the directors and volunteers names have not changed since I took my
first glider flight in 1979. Those that got us here are not the ones to
make it better.

Disgusted,

Terry Claussen
FAA Designated Flight Instructor Examiner Glider
Former SSAI# 922214