Present SSA crisis

What do you call a "similar" grad school? Do you have to fly an ASW-29 as
well?



Please don't from any accredit
wrote in message
oups.com...


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??

Jim Vincent wrote:
What do you call a "similar" grad school?
Well there is my Alma Mater, which happens to have a Master's
program in nonprofit management. I imagine that there are others out
there.

http://www.fau.edu/divdept/caupa/adv.../overview.html


Do you have to fly an ASW-29 as well?

Actually, that is not an idle question!

Vaughn

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??

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

Hobbs' geographical position is only one aspect of
the 'remoteness' of the SSA. Clearly the Board and
ExCom were not in close touch with the activities at
Hobbs. It is equally clear that neither the Board
nor the staff are in close touch with the interests
and opinions of the membership as a whole.

It really is time for a general election for a whole
new Board, a revision of the by-laws to increase overall
transparency and prevent 'overlooking' clearly stated
requirements, a review of the functions of the staff,
and possibly a subsequent decision to relocate or outsource
the back office functions.

Why has there been no rational explanation of the ED's
role in this fiasco ? Why has the Board appointed
a subset of itself to investigate itself ? What is
being done with the Foundation's funds to tackle the
financial problem, and what are the understandings
on re-funding the Foundation afterwards ? There may
be innocuous answers to these questions, but until
they are addressed members have both a right and a
duty to press for more information.

Board members complain about the highly negative attitudes
towards the SSA from its own membership [and the ED
is a skilled whiner about the calls he fields from
members]. Members are upset because they have been
getting lousy service from an SSA that has not responded
to their needs. We need a fresh start. Keeping the
same groups of people in the same locations will ensure
that we will also keep the same old attitudes and behaviors
that have failed us so badly in the past.

Individual Board members are hard-working volunteers,
but the entire culture is unhealthy.

Let me give two examples. The first relates directly
to the Hobbs problem. Look at http://www.ssa.org/download/6ssa27.
doc
and read agenda item 5.0

'Agenda Item 5.0 Soaring Magazine

The Excomm reviewed the staff’s paper on advertising
for a proofreader in Hobbs, carried out at the Excomm’s
request. The purpose of doing so was to ascertain local
availability of such skills and establish a benchmark
hourly rate. Given the pitifully poor quality of all
the respondents to the advertisement, the Excomm then
concurred in the continuation of the present arrangements
for Ms. Diana Wright, the Executive Director’s spouse,
working as part-time proofreader for Soaring Magazine.'

If even a competent proofreader cannot be found in
Hobbs, and our selected work-around smacks of nepotism,
is Hobbs really a good place to conduct our business
?

Second, the by-laws which our Board apparently does
not feel obliged to obey in the case of audits, also
state that

'At least one-third (1/3) of the number of Directors
as fixed by these bylaws, shall be necessary to constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business '.

The by-laws provide for a Board of 26 Directors; a
quorum would require 9 to be present. Yet the Board
has decided to delegate all its powers to an ExCom
of only 5 Directors. If the full Board needs 9, is
it within either the letter or the spirit of the by-laws
to make major decisions with a subset of only 5 ?
Ther is no specific mention of the ExCom in the by-laws,
yet the ExCom minutes routinely start by stating 'a
quorum being present'.

I repeat, this culture is unhealthy and must be rooted
out.

Sorry to bring all this up on ras, but the SSA does
not provide any alternative internal platform for its
members to express their disquiet.

Ian



At 22:48 21 September 2006, Dan and Jan Armstrong wrote:
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

Which of the many things that need doing will you do?
Perhaps the largest problem in SSA is the scarcity of volunteers. Why do we
have the same Regional Directors over and over? Because others rarely run
for the office.

Why the scarcity of volunteers? Beyond the pressures on time each of us
faces, the other side of the equation is 'what do we get from the SSA?' My
soaring is dependent on my wife's support, my club, the FAI, the SRA, and
the SSA, in that order. Maybe there's a problem with the value equation.

"Ian Cant" wrote in message
...
Hobbs' geographical position is only one aspect of
the 'remoteness' of the SSA. Clearly the Board and
ExCom were not in close touch with the activities at
Hobbs. It is equally clear that neither the Board
nor the staff are in close touch with the interests
and opinions of the membership as a whole.

It really is time for a general election for a whole
new Board, a revision of the by-laws to increase overall
transparency and prevent 'overlooking' clearly stated
requirements, a review of the functions of the staff,
and possibly a subsequent decision to relocate or outsource
the back office functions.

Why has there been no rational explanation of the ED's
role in this fiasco ? Why has the Board appointed
a subset of itself to investigate itself ? What is
being done with the Foundation's funds to tackle the
financial problem, and what are the understandings
on re-funding the Foundation afterwards ? There may
be innocuous answers to these questions, but until
they are addressed members have both a right and a
duty to press for more information.

Board members complain about the highly negative attitudes
towards the SSA from its own membership [and the ED
is a skilled whiner about the calls he fields from
members]. Members are upset because they have been
getting lousy service from an SSA that has not responded
to their needs. We need a fresh start. Keeping the
same groups of people in the same locations will ensure
that we will also keep the same old attitudes and behaviors
that have failed us so badly in the past.

Individual Board members are hard-working volunteers,
but the entire culture is unhealthy.

Let me give two examples. The first relates directly
to the Hobbs problem. Look at http://www.ssa.org/download/6ssa27.
doc
and read agenda item 5.0

'Agenda Item 5.0 Soaring Magazine

The Excomm reviewed the staff's paper on advertising
for a proofreader in Hobbs, carried out at the Excomm's
request. The purpose of doing so was to ascertain local
availability of such skills and establish a benchmark
hourly rate. Given the pitifully poor quality of all
the respondents to the advertisement, the Excomm then
concurred in the continuation of the present arrangements
for Ms. Diana Wright, the Executive Director's spouse,
working as part-time proofreader for Soaring Magazine.'

If even a competent proofreader cannot be found in
Hobbs, and our selected work-around smacks of nepotism,
is Hobbs really a good place to conduct our business
?

Second, the by-laws which our Board apparently does
not feel obliged to obey in the case of audits, also
state that

'At least one-third (1/3) of the number of Directors
as fixed by these bylaws, shall be necessary to constitute
a quorum for the transaction of business '.

The by-laws provide for a Board of 26 Directors; a
quorum would require 9 to be present. Yet the Board
has decided to delegate all its powers to an ExCom
of only 5 Directors. If the full Board needs 9, is
it within either the letter or the spirit of the by-laws
to make major decisions with a subset of only 5 ?
Ther is no specific mention of the ExCom in the by-laws,
yet the ExCom minutes routinely start by stating 'a
quorum being present'.

I repeat, this culture is unhealthy and must be rooted
out.

Sorry to bring all this up on ras, but the SSA does
not provide any alternative internal platform for its
members to express their disquiet.

Ian



At 22:48 21 September 2006, Dan and Jan Armstrong wrote:
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

SAM 303a wrote:
... 'what do we get from the SSA?' My
soaring is dependent on my wife's support, my club, the FAI, the SRA, and
the SSA, in that order. Maybe there's a problem with the value equation.


I think there is a misperception here, albeit a common one. Your -- and
my -- soaring is first and foremost dependent on the FAA, and without
the SSA's advocacy we would have been regulated out of the sky long
ago. As a concrete example, look at how many regulations have glider
exemptions. Every one of them was won by long and hard working SSA
volunteers backed up by the SSA organization. And I'm sad to reflect on
how much better things could be if we had a stronger organization.

It's funny that most people don't mention it often, but I'd rate this
the number one thing we get out of a national organization.

John Cochrane BB