Fellow Association Membership,

I understand that the executive secretary expenditures are a topic of close scrutiny and concern. However, this is not the issue I was attempting to address. Expenditures can be managed by a small team of conservative minded executives. With thought and planning the budget problems should be solved and the administration of the budget will be satisfactory. This might not happen over night, but I am not alarmed. What is alarming is the disposition that the problem can be solved by soliciting contributions to save the class.

My biggest concern is the current proposed change to the Object of our Constitution. And, how this relates to other recent changes to how FSSA is structured. The Organizational logic was originally structured for management from the Fleet level and not the Executive Level. The primary logic; Fleets appoint their District Governor and the roll of this representative is most notably listed in Article XII, Item 1.e. Furthermore, any proposed change to the constitution must be voted on by the Membership at the Fleet level.

It must be noted: There has been a very significant amendment to the Constitution. Article XX – Amendments has been significantly restructured and wording has been added that is contrary to the original structure of the FSSA.

The Former entry read:
Article XX – Amendments, Item 6. Proposed amendments to the Constitution shall be submitted to the Amendments Committee only by Fleet action. (My copy dates this 1983)

Now this Article and Item read:
Article XX – Amendments and Revisions, Item 3. Constitution: Proposed Amendments to the Constitution shall be submitted to the Amendments Committee either by Fleet action, or by the Executive Committee (after receiving ratification by the Board of Governors.)

Now, Amendments to the Constitution can be proposed at the top and ratification to any proposed Constitutional amendments can occur with 1/3 of the District Governors, constituting a quorum as described in Article XII.

And so here we are, faced with a vote where the purpose of the change has come from the top without the necessity of dissemination of fact and reason at the fleet level until it is time to vote. Seems nice and streamlined and is structured to get the job done. Not a problem if all is transparent.

And if we truly need this to maintain our 503c.3 tax status, then so be it. But the “And so people can make contributions to the Flying Scot Fund” portion of the supporting argument, really says it all. This the intent of the leadership and the reason for the change. There are two support arguments rolled ito one sentence. Please note, the first one has been loosely supported with "opinion" based wording. Additionally, we are not being audited. However, there is a Foundation.

Upon reflection; there is a uniform level of restriction throughout the Constitution pertaining to any revision to the Constitution. And it must be noted that it was written originally that “Only” a fleet could submit an action to amend the constitution. This supports a basic idea; Peer-level review is the best test.

Please read the Proposed Charter for the Flying Scot Foundation. There is a link to the document on the FSSA home Page. Half way down.

The challenge I propose it this: How does the Fund benefit you the FSSA member and class conforming owner/racer? How does the fund benefit the political clout of the Five Fund Committee members? Who stands to receive the most significant gain from this Fund?

Thank you,
David Neff
FS 5609