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

chip;

Thank you for the civil response.
i would like for you to consider parts of your note from a different perspective.
1. I have quit selling and accepted as a done deal many things that obviously are now in motion that i do not personally believe are being handled in a way that is best for the ssa. I have raised the issues and the board went a different way. Putting the issues out there, hopefully , resulted in a discussion at the board level. But a course has been set and changing now seems to be something that will not happen, nor should it.

"That's the nature of representative democracy"
2. I really beg to differ with you on this statement as it goes right to the heart of the last very important issue that i sought to raise. Please allow me a moment for a civics lesson. "sunshine" laws are in affect in a very large portion of local, state and even in federal government legislative bodies. Some are more stringent than others. There are provisions for executive sessions to discuss classified and personell matters that are sensitive and would do harm to the process if discussed publically. The Press does its damndest to gain information and we have all seen this movie played out in the national news.
Chip, my point is that representative democracy, as practiced in the UNITED STATES has evolved into a model in which the "members" demand information and are generally privey to the inner discussions that go into the actual decision making . This is particularly evident during an election year as each party brings out the discussion on every issue that they think will win votes for their cause. Our nation will listen to this discussion, and other things, and make a collective decision in a couple of weeks over who will constitute the elective body that will make the decisions .
As citizens we expect to be informed of the debate going on and have enacted laws to mandate sunshine to insure that this information is available.. The press acts as the watchdog. When the system gets cute, someone leaks information and it gets out in spite of even the president's wishes!!!
Conflicts of interest are currently being featured in national press as are other indescretions. it is PART OF THE PROCESS by which the body politic causes the elected representatives in a representative democracy to represent their collective needs and to force change when the entrenched decision makers stray too far away from what the majority of the voters ( members) want.

Ok, I am not suggesting that the members vote on every little issue. I am no longer suggesting a different model for dealing with the situation. I have been outvoted on the board level and there are no provisions for a recall election in the bylaws ( you might suggest that as a change).
"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. "
HOW NICE OF THEM!!!
That is fine. BUT it wouldn't fly in the representative democracy that governs most local,state and federal lawmakers. In my view, the watchdogs appointed are in the role of the press. But aside from this board,and your going public ( which is similar to the NY TIMES printing a story on secret prisons or govt evesdropping), you really don't have much of a forum. The forum exists within the ssa members section. I suggest that the monitors use it often.
But the real issue now on the table is the sudden stop in posting the minutes of the excom and the board . it simply gives the appearance that something is going on that is not being disclosed. Additionally, the sanitized draft minutes which have deleted the obviously contentious discussionss between yourself and the board is also not consistant with a representative democracy that operates under sunshine rules that are in place through out our political system.
Corporate governance is a bit different than political governance. non profit governance a bit different still.
It is my opinion that the board should post the minutes of each meeting ( excom too) promptly and include the pros and cons of MAJOR issues and even perhaps a listing of how the vote went by members on the really big issues. I am NOT suggesting that every little thing be discussed with the members, but certainly there have been some very very large issues decided and plans taken, some with an obvious split and after heated discussion, that we really have no idea about.

So far the board has taken a paternalistic rather than an open position re information. We have been given information, but not nearly enough and no insight into the debate.

It is my opinion that in a representative democracy, the members have a need and the right to have such insights. Especially in an organization that is voluntary in terms of membership and undergoing a major restructuring. Members have to want to belong.

The "trust us" model, enhanced by the appointement of watchdogs is the model that we are clearly working on at this moment.
The members were not given a choice. we were not even really made privy to the discussion surrounding the decision to go this route. That is not the way a representative democracy works long term .
I am clearly proposing that information be SHARED and not HOARDED or guarded. It will come out anyway.. it is good that we have monitors to the process, but the members should have more information and the board should be very careful of creating the impression among the membership that things are being done behind closed doors. The APPEARANCE of openness is very important. without it it is my belief that a portion of the membership will become disaffected.
bottom line post the minutes, and include in the minutes a frank disclosure of opposing points of view. it is OK to present minutes that reflect a difference in opinion. they do not have to present each issue as a unamious decision .

"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.

If by US you mean the general membership, we have only the minutes and several carefully written summary notes to go on. If you mean the watchdogs, i certainly hope that they are on it.

Finally, i am not suggesting that every little thing be disclosed. But i have a real problem with recent major decisions being taken in a paternalistic manner. I would hope that the board will consider my suggestion that they error on the side of more, rather than less information.
thank you

5bg




wrote in message oups.com...
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