Important message for SSA members

The fact that they didn't file returns in 2003 certainly is public
information. How long does it take to do an investigation like this? This
should have been resolved and fixed in one week, and the CFO fired.

Mike Schumann

"Wayne Paul" wrote in message
...

"Mike Schumann" wrote in message
nk.net...
Here are the IRS FAQs regarding public disclosu

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article...=96430,00.html

I would suspect that the fact that the non-profit failed to pay taxes and
file tax returns as required by law would be covered by the spirit, if
not the letter of the public disclosure rules.

Mike Schumann

...and I am sure the SSA will make full disclosure when they file their
annual financial statement. However, it would be inappropriate to release
detailed information while the investigation is ongoing. The current
disclosure to association membership was not a legal requirement... it was
a courtesy.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 "6F"
http://www.soaridaho.com/

And you are still shooting from the hip.

At 18:00 04 September 2006, Mike Schumann wrote:
The fact that they didn't file returns in 2003 certainly
is public
information. How long does it take to do an investigation
like this? This
should have been resolved and fixed in one week, and
the CFO fired.

Mike Schumann

'Wayne Paul' wrote in message
...

'Mike Schumann' wrote in message
nk.net...
Here are the IRS FAQs regarding public disclosu

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article...=96430,00.html

I would suspect that the fact that the non-profit
failed to pay taxes and
file tax returns as required by law would be covered
by the spirit, if
not the letter of the public disclosure rules.

Mike Schumann

...and I am sure the SSA will make full disclosure
when they file their
annual financial statement. However, it would be
inappropriate to release
detailed information while the investigation is ongoing.
The current
disclosure to association membership was not a legal
requirement... it was
a courtesy.

Wayne
HP-14 N990 '6F'
http://www.soaridaho.com/

OK how is the SSA going to come back from this one.

Does the CEO of the corporation not have to sign and or approve
expenditure even as mundane as a simple tax bill/return?

Why is Gleason on paid administrative leave and not terminated for
failure to perform?

Why isn't Dennis Wright on paid administrative leave after this
debacle pending investigation?

Why did the auditors not pick this up?

Does the CEO and CFO not have to sign and approve any annual tax
filings?

Why was the ex-com not informed until now as this has been going on
since 2003?

How on earth did this go for this long unnoticed?

Is this the end of the SSA as an effective representative body?

Are SSA members not liable for a portion of the tax unpaid and
penalties?

Lot of questions but man after the Sanderson issue it cannot get much
worse.

Al


wrote:
Let's not shoot the messenger.

I agree. But I'm referring not to the individual who chose to post the
SSA's message to its members, but to the real messenger: the SSA
Executive Committee.

I suspect they're wrestling with the typical real-world issues that
cause most situations like this to be anything but black or white:
i.e., balancing a natural desire to dismiss the employee who apparently
breached the trust placed in him against considerations such as:

- determining the extent of any losses (did the SSA simply not pay
its bills or are funds missing?) and who may have been involved;
- recovering assets
- collecting the information necessary to file delinquent tax
returns and determine the amount of unpaid withholding taxes
- gaining cooperation that may be critical in the foregoing efforts;

- obtaining and preserving legally admissible evidence;
- evaluating civil and criminal options, including what recourse the
SSA may have against individuals and organizations;
- avoiding any steps that might leave the SSA open to accusations of
libel or wrongful termination (in this country, anything is possible);
careful readers of the letter will note that it is limited to
statements of fact and to Alan Gleason's own admissions--it avoids
other allegations.
- ensuring the damage is contained by implementing better controls;
- dealing with accountants and advisors who may have some explaining
to do;
- retaining and working with legal counsel;
- negotiating with federal and state tax authorities to mitigate
interest and penalties
- communicating with the board, the officers, and the members, etc.

As a 40+ year SSA member, I would be understating it to say I'm angry
and frustrated and depressed at this latest news. But the fact remains
that this time, unlike another unhappy situation in the past, the SSA
Executive Committee made what appears to be timely and extensive
disclosure, remarkably so (given our legal environment) regarding Alan
Gleason's admissions.

Let's confirm the wisdom of their decision by behaving responsibly.
We're free to raise questions, in particular of our elected directors.
But rather than second-guessing, speculating, offering ill-informed
advice, spreading rumors, or accusing anyone, I suggest that we all
stay tuned to www.ssa.org...and to the nearly instantaneous repostings
to this newsgroup by "helpful" members.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

The people who should be nervous are the SSA directors. Failure to pay
witholding taxes becomes a personal liability for each of them.

It certainly begs the question on why have an outside accounting firm, when
they don't notice something as simple as this.

The thing that really gets me, is giving someone "paid administrative leave"
aka a paid vacation for this kind of screw up. Heads should role instead.

Mike Schumann

wrote in message
ups.com...
OK how is the SSA going to come back from this one.

Does the CEO of the corporation not have to sign and or approve
expenditure even as mundane as a simple tax bill/return?

Why is Gleason on paid administrative leave and not terminated for
failure to perform?

Why isn't Dennis Wright on paid administrative leave after this
debacle pending investigation?

Why did the auditors not pick this up?

Does the CEO and CFO not have to sign and approve any annual tax
filings?

Why was the ex-com not informed until now as this has been going on
since 2003?

How on earth did this go for this long unnoticed?

Is this the end of the SSA as an effective representative body?

Are SSA members not liable for a portion of the tax unpaid and
penalties?

Lot of questions but man after the Sanderson issue it cannot get much
worse.

Al


wrote:
Let's not shoot the messenger.

I agree. But I'm referring not to the individual who chose to post the
SSA's message to its members, but to the real messenger: the SSA
Executive Committee.

I suspect they're wrestling with the typical real-world issues that
cause most situations like this to be anything but black or white:
i.e., balancing a natural desire to dismiss the employee who apparently
breached the trust placed in him against considerations such as:

- determining the extent of any losses (did the SSA simply not pay
its bills or are funds missing?) and who may have been involved;
- recovering assets
- collecting the information necessary to file delinquent tax
returns and determine the amount of unpaid withholding taxes
- gaining cooperation that may be critical in the foregoing efforts;

- obtaining and preserving legally admissible evidence;
- evaluating civil and criminal options, including what recourse the
SSA may have against individuals and organizations;
- avoiding any steps that might leave the SSA open to accusations of
libel or wrongful termination (in this country, anything is possible);
careful readers of the letter will note that it is limited to
statements of fact and to Alan Gleason's own admissions--it avoids
other allegations.
- ensuring the damage is contained by implementing better controls;
- dealing with accountants and advisors who may have some explaining
to do;
- retaining and working with legal counsel;
- negotiating with federal and state tax authorities to mitigate
interest and penalties
- communicating with the board, the officers, and the members, etc.

As a 40+ year SSA member, I would be understating it to say I'm angry
and frustrated and depressed at this latest news. But the fact remains
that this time, unlike another unhappy situation in the past, the SSA
Executive Committee made what appears to be timely and extensive
disclosure, remarkably so (given our legal environment) regarding Alan
Gleason's admissions.

Let's confirm the wisdom of their decision by behaving responsibly.
We're free to raise questions, in particular of our elected directors.
But rather than second-guessing, speculating, offering ill-informed
advice, spreading rumors, or accusing anyone, I suggest that we all
stay tuned to www.ssa.org...and to the nearly instantaneous repostings
to this newsgroup by "helpful" members.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"

How did this go on for so long?

My reading of the by-laws gives the Xcom way too much power. Lack of
oversight for (mostly) appointed directors may be excusable due to
their twice annual meeting. The XCOM selects its own members, meets
frequently and sets direction for the association. That does not sound
too good for the members.

Sign me a former member.

I'm surprised at two things in this thread. First the outrage leveled
at the reposter of the message. Is this really unexpected? Water
isn't the only thing to follow the path of least resistance - the
internet eases the flow of information considerably and anyone that
posts a message here pointing the rest of us to the SSA site should
assume that said information will appear on RAS in short order. Second
the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably stunning. I guess
lifelong members of the SSA have just gotten used to this level of
incompetence? Frankly at this point I am starting to believe that the
best thing that could happen to the SSA is for it to dissolve. I
highly doubt any of the executive members will be honest enough to
state that the biggest threat to the long term viability of the SSA
isn't the declining number of people soaring but the financial
mismanagement of the organization.

-bob

Mike Schumann wrote:
Here are the IRS FAQs regarding public disclosu

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article...=96430,00.html

I would suspect that the fact that the non-profit failed to pay taxes and
file tax returns as required by law would be covered by the spirit, if not
the letter of the public disclosure rules.
snip

Here is an excerpt (FAQ #10) that answers the question:

If an organization makes its documents "widely available" must it make
the documents available for public inspection?

Yes. Making documents widely available satisfies the requirement to
provide copies of the documents. This requirement is separate from the
requirement to make the documents available for public inspection.
There is no exception (similar to the widely available exception) from
the requirement to make documents available for public inspection.

----

Realistically, you can't expect to keep something confidential by
telling it to 16,000 people!

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

Mike Schumann wrote:
Here are the IRS FAQs regarding public disclosu

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article...=96430,00.html

I would suspect that the fact that the non-profit failed to pay taxes and
file tax returns as required by law would be covered by the spirit, if not
the letter of the public disclosure rules.
snip

Here is an excerpt (FAQ #10) that answers the question:

If an organization makes its documents "widely available" must it make
the documents available for public inspection?

Yes. Making documents widely available satisfies the requirement to
provide copies of the documents. This requirement is separate from the
requirement to make the documents available for public inspection.
There is no exception (similar to the widely available exception) from
the requirement to make documents available for public inspection.

----

Realistically, you can't expect to keep something confidential by
telling it to 16,000 people!

Tom Seim
Richland, WA

wrote in message
oups.com...
I'm surprised at two things in this thread. Second
the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably stunning.

Well, the outrage at the guy who reposted the information here on ras kind of
squelched the conversation. For the record, based on what I know so far, you
can put me in the camp of those who feel the "Captain of the Ship" (PIC?, CEO?)
bears ultimate responsibility in this case.

Vaughn (a member)

Why such outrage at the reposter, and apparent member
apathy about such a seemingly serious issue as the
possible (probable?) demise of our national organization?
Simple.

Berating the reporter is a common boardroom tactic
used by those in a precarious, embarrassing position
when confronted with evidence of their incompetence.
The person trying to bring their actions to light
is accused of being a traitor and trying to undermine
the organization, usually in such an obnoxious way
that the others in attendance would rather change the
subject than deal with the situation. As we've seen
in this case, the tactic usually works.

Trying to sweep a problem under the rug in the name
of organizational privacy is a rediculous attempt to
keep things under wraps while those involved can either
make their escape, destroy the evidence or find someone
else to blame.

There is NO excuse for failure to pay taxes. Are we
really to believe that this was just an honest mistake?
The taxes were just 'overlooked' for four years?
Is this really the best leadership we can find?

Maybe we should investigate scrapping the whole SSA
concept, and either starting over, or joining forces
with one of the other (infinitely more effective) aviation
organizations, such as AOPA, or even USHGA.

Let the flaming begin...

Bob C


At 19:31 05 September 2006, wrote:
I'm surprised at two things in this thread. First
the outrage leveled
at the reposter of the message. Is this really unexpected?
Water
isn't the only thing to follow the path of least resistance
- the
internet eases the flow of information considerably
and anyone that
posts a message here pointing the rest of us to the
SSA site should
assume that said information will appear on RAS in
short order. Second
the lack of outrage leveled at the SSA is remarkably
stunning. I guess
lifelong members of the SSA have just gotten used to
this level of
incompetence? Frankly at this point I am starting
to believe that the
best thing that could happen to the SSA is for it to
dissolve. I
highly doubt any of the executive members will be honest
enough to
state that the biggest threat to the long term viability
of the SSA
isn't the declining number of people soaring but the
financial
mismanagement of the organization.

-bob