Important message for SSA members

Vaughn Simon wrote:
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)
I think you need to contact your regional director(s) to gain some
additional insight into the situation.

The financial reports and quarterly statements are available online to
members under governance. You might want to review some of these prior
to contacting your directors. You may also want to look over the
reports of the SSA Foundation.

I understand as a result of the previous problem, part of that solution
(wisely or unwisely) was to not have the CFO reporting directly to the
CEO. I understand also that the CFO apparently did not do what was
asked of him regarding the accountants. Actual details are a bit
sparse at this point, but seem consistent with Dianne's letter to the
members. One can only guess at the possible motives and whether
deception, neglect or omission was involved. Again, contact your
director(s) for further discussion. I'm confident members will be
given appropriate updates.

I don't know if directors will discuss this with those posting here
that are not currently SSA members.

Frank Whiteley

lets get real clear on what was actually reported to the members of SSA by the chair of the board.
1. Gross and material misrepresentations of the financial condition of the society were made by two cfo's, endorsed by current and past ceo and recieved by the current and past chairpersons. These false and misleading financials were submitted while the society had a relationship with a professional accounting firm.

2. Required non profit reports to the government were not filed since 2002.

3. required deposits and reports to federal and state governments of amounts withheld from employee checks and matching contributions were not made beginning 2003.

4. the actual amount not paid is estimated at $300,000 and with penalities and interest was estimated at $600,000. Annual dues at $65 for 16,000 members is about 1 million just as a point in reference.

5. The chair is looking into "borrowing " money from "unrestricted " funds within the foundation. It would not surprise me to hear in a future note to members that these funds have already been looted and that false financial statements have been submitted.

A situation of this magnitude that persists since 2002 and survives multiple managers and boards is simply not the work of an isolated individual. It is inconceivable to me that a professional accounting firm, post enron, does not understand that its primary legal obligation is to the ASSOCIATION and that it has a duty to bring such malfeasance to the attention of the chairman OR TO RESIGN.

We have been told that an outside attorney has been retained to determine the scope of the problem. It is inconceivable to me that that attorney would continue to use the services of the old accounting firm. In any event, NO ESTIMATE WAS GIVEN as to the projected cost of the attorney investigation nor of the cost of redoing all financial statements and preparing back reports. You can bet it will BE PLENTY. Full and complete audits are expensive.

In my opinion, this is a systemic problem that i find difficult to imagine was confined to one individual. Am I to believe that no notices of deliquency were ever sent to SSA? and if sent that they were seen by only the "one individual"? Am I to believe that this one individual cooked the books before he was even hired? or that his assistant was totally in the dark. Or that the current and past ceo was so out of touch with a very small office that they had no idea of what was going on?? In corporate America, the CEO SIGNS THE RETURNS and is responsible. I would assume the same applies to a non profit.

The real problem that longtime members such as myself face is that of group insurance coverage. I do NOT BELIEVE that SSA will survive this ordeal. I just got a quote for lesser coverage with a $1,000 deductable ( current deductable is zero) policy for my glider. It was $400 more than the grpoup coverage through ssa. AND if I wish to add a pilot to my policy it costs an extra $100. Clearly, I have remained a dues paying member of ssa for the past several years, not because the organization addressed my needs as a pilot, BUT FOR THE INSURANCE.
Perhaps Costello could and should get ahead of this issue and begin putting together an ex SSA group policy.

I am seriously disgusted with this whole mess and am not at all optomistic that all of the monetary problems have been fully disclosed. It is going to be very interesting to see what, if anything, remains in the RESTRICTED as well as UNRESTRICTED fund bank accounts. I am also going to be VERY ****ED OFF if the insurance issue is used to "encourage" members to pay a special assessment to cover back payments, and the cost of figuring out the mess.

Make available a group insurance policy under a different umbrella organization and i believe that a significant part of the membership will vote with their feet. I barely glance at the magazine that is geared towards the el;ite contest pilots and their exploits. As for the four staff committments cited in my recent letter of renewal, i would add enriching themselves as a fifth.
"Frank Whiteley" wrote in message oups.com...

Vaughn Simon wrote:
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)
I think you need to contact your regional director(s) to gain some
additional insight into the situation.

The financial reports and quarterly statements are available online to
members under governance. You might want to review some of these prior
to contacting your directors. You may also want to look over the
reports of the SSA Foundation.

I understand as a result of the previous problem, part of that solution
(wisely or unwisely) was to not have the CFO reporting directly to the
CEO. I understand also that the CFO apparently did not do what was
asked of him regarding the accountants. Actual details are a bit
sparse at this point, but seem consistent with Dianne's letter to the
members. One can only guess at the possible motives and whether
deception, neglect or omission was involved. Again, contact your
director(s) for further discussion. I'm confident members will be
given appropriate updates.

I don't know if directors will discuss this with those posting here
that are not currently SSA members.

Frank Whiteley

I think having a Soaring sub-group under the AOPA umbrella sounds like a
great potential solution. This could leverage AOPA's existing
organizational infrastructure (financial, publishing, lobbying, insurance,
etc.), dramatically reducing the amount of resources that are being spent on
these types of activities by the SSA.

Mike Schumann

"Bob C" wrote in message
...
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

We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.


At 13:06 06 September 2006, Mike Schumann wrote:
I think having a Soaring sub-group under the AOPA umbrella
sounds like a
great potential solution. This could leverage AOPA's
existing
organizational infrastructure (financial, publishing,
lobbying, insurance,
etc.), dramatically reducing the amount of resources
that are being spent on
these types of activities by the SSA.

Mike Schumann

'Bob C' wrote in message
...
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

Well, maybe they just had computer problems .... Oh yeah, I forgot, we
already covered that several years ago.



"5-BG" 5-bghatesspam @ fake.com wrote in message
...
lets get real clear on what was actually reported to the members of SSA by
the chair of the board.
1. Gross and material misrepresentations of the financial condition of the
society were made by two cfo's, endorsed by current and past ceo and
recieved by the current and past chairpersons. These false and misleading
financials were submitted while the society had a relationship with a
professional accounting firm.

2. Required non profit reports to the government were not filed since
2002.

3. required deposits and reports to federal and state governments of amounts
withheld from employee checks and matching contributions were not made
beginning 2003.

4. the actual amount not paid is estimated at $300,000 and with penalities
and interest was estimated at $600,000. Annual dues at $65 for 16,000
members is about 1 million just as a point in reference.

5. The chair is looking into "borrowing " money from "unrestricted " funds
within the foundation. It would not surprise me to hear in a future note to
members that these funds have already been looted and that false financial
statements have been submitted.

A situation of this magnitude that persists since 2002 and survives
multiple managers and boards is simply not the work of an isolated
individual. It is inconceivable to me that a professional accounting firm,
post enron, does not understand that its primary legal obligation is to the
ASSOCIATION and that it has a duty to bring such malfeasance to the
attention of the chairman OR TO RESIGN.

We have been told that an outside attorney has been retained to determine
the scope of the problem. It is inconceivable to me that that attorney would
continue to use the services of the old accounting firm. In any event, NO
ESTIMATE WAS GIVEN as to the projected cost of the attorney investigation
nor of the cost of redoing all financial statements and preparing back
reports. You can bet it will BE PLENTY. Full and complete audits are
expensive.

In my opinion, this is a systemic problem that i find difficult to imagine
was confined to one individual. Am I to believe that no notices of
deliquency were ever sent to SSA? and if sent that they were seen by only
the "one individual"? Am I to believe that this one individual cooked the
books before he was even hired? or that his assistant was totally in the
dark. Or that the current and past ceo was so out of touch with a very small
office that they had no idea of what was going on?? In corporate America,
the CEO SIGNS THE RETURNS and is responsible. I would assume the same
applies to a non profit.

The real problem that longtime members such as myself face is that of
group insurance coverage. I do NOT BELIEVE that SSA will survive this
ordeal. I just got a quote for lesser coverage with a $1,000 deductable (
current deductable is zero) policy for my glider. It was $400 more than the
grpoup coverage through ssa. AND if I wish to add a pilot to my policy it
costs an extra $100. Clearly, I have remained a dues paying member of ssa
for the past several years, not because the organization addressed my needs
as a pilot, BUT FOR THE INSURANCE.
Perhaps Costello could and should get ahead of this issue and begin putting
together an ex SSA group policy.

I am seriously disgusted with this whole mess and am not at all optomistic
that all of the monetary problems have been fully disclosed. It is going to
be very interesting to see what, if anything, remains in the RESTRICTED as
well as UNRESTRICTED fund bank accounts. I am also going to be VERY ****ED
OFF if the insurance issue is used to "encourage" members to pay a special
assessment to cover back payments, and the cost of figuring out the mess.

Make available a group insurance policy under a different umbrella
organization and i believe that a significant part of the membership will
vote with their feet. I barely glance at the magazine that is geared towards
the el;ite contest pilots and their exploits. As for the four staff
committments cited in my recent letter of renewal, i would add enriching
themselves as a fifth.

Maybe one page in the AOPA magazine every month would be a great way to get
more pilots interested in soaring. That might do more for the sport than a
full color glossy magazine aimed at the converted.

Mike Schumann

"Nyal Williams" wrote in message
...
We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.


At 13:06 06 September 2006, Mike Schumann wrote:
I think having a Soaring sub-group under the AOPA umbrella
sounds like a
great potential solution. This could leverage AOPA's
existing
organizational infrastructure (financial, publishing,
lobbying, insurance,
etc.), dramatically reducing the amount of resources
that are being spent on
these types of activities by the SSA.

Mike Schumann

'Bob C' wrote in message
...
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

Mike Schumann wrote:
Maybe one page in the AOPA magazine every month would be a great way to get
more pilots interested in soaring. That might do more for the sport than a
full color glossy magazine aimed at the converted.

Mike Schumann

"Nyal Williams" wrote in message
...
We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.

AOPA has been pretty good about running soaring related articles from
time to time. Also, doubtless other magazines and newsletters would
spring up to take the place of SOARING.

As an example of the way things might turn out in the AOPA magazine,
look at Aerokurier. Although primarily a power magazine, it has soaring
features, too.

AOPA is a great organization that has done much good for general aviation
for many years. I wish them well, but don't want us to become part of them.

We shouldn't get ourselves under their umbrella. In a tough battle with the
FAA, I'd be worried about soaring issues becoming something to bargain away
in a compromise, in order to preserve rights for the powered aircraft (their
major constituency).

In a hypothetical business jet/glider midair, whose side do you think they'd
be on when it comes to proposing solutions?

They wouldn't fight for us as hard as we will fight for us. If we can only
get competent leadership in the SSA (sadly lacking for many years), we
actually might be able to fight for ourselves.

Regards,
Bullwinkle

On 9/6/06 11:07 AM, in article yfDLg.18776$RD.4368@fed1read08, "Greg Arnold"
wrote:

Mike Schumann wrote:
Maybe one page in the AOPA magazine every month would be a great way to get
more pilots interested in soaring. That might do more for the sport than a
full color glossy magazine aimed at the converted.

Mike Schumann

"Nyal Williams" wrote in message
...
We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.

AOPA has been pretty good about running soaring related articles from
time to time. Also, doubtless other magazines and newsletters would
spring up to take the place of SOARING.

As an example of the way things might turn out in the AOPA magazine,
look at Aerokurier. Although primarily a power magazine, it has soaring
features, too.

Nyal Williams wrote:
We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.

Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association of
Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed) newsletters
(2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
*airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification. I
got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter which
would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite email
exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
resigned in protest.

Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.

Tony V. CFIG
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING

I think it is pretty clear that if the SSA survives this latest bout of
mismanagment that our dues will mainly go to debt payment, and not to
services for members.

Several of us at our club have considered the pros and cons of the AOPA
idea. It definitely is worth discussing.

The AOPA has some real lobbying power. If the SSA ever had any, it
won't now. The amount of $ SSA had, has, or will have to spend on
lobbying efforts probably won't even open the door for us with anyone
in Washington. AOPA's clout is another matter.

I don't know that the AOPA would be interested, but 16,000 pilots would
be a healthy addition to their membership, if that is what the SSA
membership is. Of course, some SSA are already AOPA members.

A couple of pages monthly in the AOPA magizine would probably do
soaring a world of good. Most of the potential pilots for our sport
are already power pilots.

AIG, the insurer who underwrites the policies that come from
Costello's, already has a relationship with the AOPA. Probably
Costello's has a relationship with the AOPA too. Hopefully, we
maintain our insurance in its present form.

Let's face the reality of the situation. We may soon have no national
soaring umbrella organization. We will need to deal with that in some
fashion. Better to think about the alternatives now.

Stan Scott - VA

Tony Verhulst wrote:
Nyal Williams wrote:
We have always wanted to be more like the BGA. Do you
believe that, comprising 1% of the pilot population,
we would receive any notice inside AOPA? Maybe one
page near the back of the magazine -- occasionally.

Would we receive any notice inside AOPA? No! Not even inside EAA nor
even NAFI. Case in point, I used to be a NAFI (National Association of
Flight Instructors) member. In one of their monthly (mailed) newsletters
(2002), they warned us that the PTS (practical Test Standard)was
changing and to make sure that we trained our students to the new
standards. When I researched the matter I discovered that ONLY the
*airplane* PTS was changing - not glider, not helicopter, ... you get
the picture. I wrote a nice letter to the organization president and
editor explaining the situation and requested a public clarification. I
got nowhere - not even a clarification in their online newsletter which
would have cost them nothing to distribute. After several polite email
exchanges, I realized that unless you were an airplane instructor you
were nothing and that there was no point in me being a member. I
resigned in protest.

Expect similar treatment if we become part of AOPA.

Tony V. CFIG
http://home.comcast.net/~verhulst/SOARING