transparancy/member information

5-BG,

I caught some flak from certain SSA directors because early on in the
rec.aviation.soaring wars after SSA's first disclosure, I began
referring to you as "one of the few guys there who really gets it."
Later I thought you went too far on some of your conspiracy theories.
And your often confrontational and abrasive style rubbed even those who
shared some of your views the wrong way. But you clearly were one of
the early ones to understand what many of the real issues were in this
scandal.

At this point, however, I have to say: "you've made the sale; now stop
selling." The Board and ExComm agreed to allow us to set up an
independent group to monitor ExComm's (and the short-term Emergency
Business Plan Task Force's) activities. As announced, that group has
been set up (Tom Dixon, Misti Roland, and David Pixton) and they've
been attending (dialing into) ExComm meetings for some weeks. There are
still a few details of the actual charter to be resolved but I
understand ExComm and the Review Task Force (as it's now called) are
close. I say "I understand" because Richard Kellerman and I backed away
from active participation after determining we'd found three excellent
people for the RTF.

That's the nature of representative democracy. I don't want ExComm or
the EBPTF to keep us up to date on every little thing they say or do.
Nor should they. Having confidence that those two groups (which have
heavy overlap in membership) know what they're doing should (in a
perfect world) reassure me that they'll do the right thing. Knowing
there's a third party watching them every step of the way lets me sleep
at night in this imperfect world.

RTF was set up to ensure none of the inherent conflicts of interest
that exist (we've talked that one to death) push ExComm the wrong way.
Now that RTF is operating, I've stopped posting on this subject. We got
what we asked for and needed, although not before I damaged my personal
reputation with some folks on the Board, and probably in the membership
at large, by "going public" with my concerns. I suggest now that unless
you have new information, you accept partial credit for helping push
SSA in the right direction and focus your attention on what, from your
perspective, are undoubtedly far more serious issues.

If the Board, ExComm, or any other SSA group gives us reason to
question whether they're operating competently and in good faith, I'll
be among the first to ask for an explanation, disclosure, and/or
change. To date, however, the process appears to be working. It took us
a while to get where we are but I believe we're on the right track now.

Chip Bearden