Present SSA crisis

I have no problems with bringing in consultants/biz school folks if
that is what it takes, but the bottom line is that the executive
director should have management capabilities such that a large number
of consultants or consultant $$ should not be necessary. It would be
great to find a soaring pilot with the appropriate skills. But IMHO
this is a problem with Hobbs, it is not "executive-attractive" for
recruiting, with all due respect to Hobbs. This is another reason why
the SSA office should be located in a different location. Things I
would think about related to a good location would be (1) a location in
which it would be reasonably easy to convince a good ED candidate to
relocate to; (2) a location that is easy to reach via commercial
flights, preferably at or near a hub/hub equivalent, for both board
members and volunteers, and (3) a ready base of local volunteers or
near-local volunteers who can easily drive in. What you inspect
people respect.
Janice Armstrong

wrote:
My understanding is that years ago when the SSA "worked" it was run by
young dynamic leaders who loved soaring (e.g. John Dezutti) who took a
position like ED almost right out of college/B-school, spent several
years learning the ropes of running a large organization, then moved on
to bigger and better things (notice the success of the 83 Worlds
organized under a tight timeline following the UK's scuffle with
Argentina/Falklands Islands in this timeframe). They were probably
also cheaper than the six figure ED's we've had lately. I'm all in
favor of this plan, and hell, I even know where you can find one (or
more) individuals who fit the description.

2c


wrote:
Greg Arnold wrote:
If the SSA survives, it really needs to hire an outside consultant who
is an expert on non-profit membership organizations, and who can advise
about the proper governing structure.

A good idea, but it might be even better to see if we could get help
from Harvard, Stanford or similar Biz School alumni on a volunteer
basis. I know both Harvard and Stanford have programs of this nature to
help non-profit organizations run more efficiently. One of my good
friends does this through Harvard's program and he is a first rate
consultant, much better than SSA could probably afford to hire. (He's
the former CFO of a public company.) And he puts in a fair amount of
time on his projects. It's not just a "look good" thing.

A big question is whether there are any such people willing to work on
SSA, esp given its remote location. Maybe there are some such people on
this site??

"Dan and Jan Armstrong" wrote in message
oups.com...
I have no problems with bringing in consultants/biz school folks if
that is what it takes, but the bottom line is that the executive
director should have management capabilities such that a large number
of consultants or consultant $$ should not be necessary.

Which begs the question, how could our professional ED possibly have missed
such basic and blatant problems for so long?

Vaughn

"But IMHO this is a problem with Hobbs, it is not "executive-attractive" for
recruiting, with all due respect to Hobbs. This is another reason why
the SSA office should be located in a different location."

The present problem stems from dishonesty and/or incompetence. It has
nothing to do with Hobbs. Enron was not based in Hobbs. The same reasons
that the SSA moved to Hobbs continue. As far as I am concerned, a large
city is not executive-attractive. This comment makes the assumption that
there is not one person who could manage a relatively small company who
would leave the big city life and relocate to Hobbs. As a matter of fact,
most of the companies that are having financial problems are based in large
cities, with access to airway hubs, people, schools, garbage pickup and
wireless internet. 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.

Colin

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

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