From Our Friends in Alabama: Some Questions For CIC Wilson About SCV Finances

IHQ at "Elm Springs" seems to be a topic of grave concern within the SCV leadership. Prior to the ‘03 General Convention the SCV General Executive Council voted to sever relationships with the MOSB and to buy out the part ownership the MOSB has in "Elm Springs". At the August 2 2003 CIC Ron Wilson-dominated General Executive Council meeting, a committee was created to work toward the selling of "Elm Springs" by the SCV (the decision to purchase "Elm Springs" in the beginning was done by the Confederation in General Convention - wonder if the SCV leadership will try to sell it on their own without Confederation approval?). The reason reported for this was that it has become a "bottomless pit" of expenses. The two SCV 04 Budgets distributed at the 2003 General Convention (no one seems sure which one is "the" budget) ranged in budgeted expenses for the facility from $18,500 in one to $32,750 in the other out of a total SCV projected expense of $1,170,850 for one budget to $1,271,700 in the other. The budgeted facility expense is not exactly a "bottomless pit" as presented in these budgets.

"Elm Springs" does demand a facility expense for upkeep as will any office space. No doubt the SCV leadership is starting to realize that with its efforts to eliminate relations with the MOSB and to buy out the MOSB part ownership in "Elm Springs" the 10% of the "Elm Springs" budget that is currently paid by the MOSB (a figure totally set by the SCV with no MOSB input) will become a thing of the past and that replacement funds will need to be found. With surprise and amusement we note that both of the 04 Budgets at General Convention still contain a MOSB contribution expectation!! to "Elm Springs" despite the separation plans, the buy out planning and the fact that CIC Wilson has directed that the MOSB receive no time slots for the 2004 General Convention. We can reasonably surmise that the "time slots question" was done, at least in part, to discourage MOSB members who are overwhelmingly SCV members from attending the SCV Convention during an election year thus giving CIC Wilson a better chance of having his way with items needing a vote,

As prudent individuals we must consider the probability that the reason for exploring the possibility of selling "Elm Springs" stems not totally, or even mainly, from facility expenses but for the unprecedented expenses added during the first year of CIC Wilson's regime. These expenses have been noted before and unanswered questions have been raised as to how the additions would be paid for. Perhaps the considered sale of "Elm Springs" should be looked upon as the leadership's answer to payment. The main two new expenses of note, but not the only ones, are payments for the new Editor-in-Chief and the Field Representatives.

After doing an outstanding job as Editor-in-Chief free of charge for 15+ years James Vogler, Jr. was fired unceremoniously prior to the 2003 General Convention and without as much as a "thank you™™. The new editor, Frank Powell, is said to be in line to receive a salary of between $50-60,000 a year. By any standard this is a rather large increase for securing the services of an Editor-in-Chief. The new editor will also edit the Southern Mercury for the Political Action Committee. Can anyone explain why the "non-political" SCV has a PAC?

By the time of the 2003 General Convention the SCV had two Field Representatives (Jack Marlar/Skip Earl) with the CIC promising to add more. These men are to serve as full time SCV fund raisers/recruiters. The 04 SCV Budgets submitted at convention, and all other material obtained from the convention, failed to note the amount of money or members brought into the SCV by these men. According to news out of the SCV General Executive Council the representatives are paid between $30-50,000 a year while the 04 Budgets list their expenses as $75,000 for the new year while the other makes the statement that "Field Rep Expenses avg 53.7% of salary". This unfortunate choice of words gives the distinct impression that the SCV did not set an expense limit but will accept whatever expense is turned in. Responsible fiscal budgets do not list expense accounts as "average expenses",

Such a situation would definitely establish a "bottomless pit". Using what figures we have been provided with the new Editor-in-Chief and the Field Representatives all together could well cost the SCV as much as $235,000+ in extra expenses. This is far and above the $18,500 - $32,750 budgeted for the "Elm Springs" facility, the so called "bottomless pit".

In his Annual Report to the 2003 General Convention SCV Lt. Commander Denne Sweeney listed the top methods of recruiting members as personal contacts with friends/relatives (60%); ads in Civil War Times (7%); SCV booths by Camps at gun shows, etc. (4%); bumper stickers (2%). In his own words "Everything else was statistically insignificant." Note that the Field Representatives would fall into the "statistically insignificant" category despite their $175,000+ price tag as noted in the two 04 budgets circulated at convention. Yet on page 2 of the Confederate Veteran, Volume Three 2003, CIC Wilson is quoted as saying "Our Field Representatives are doing a great job" and "The Field Representative Program is...yielding results we never dreamed of". If such is so why were reports not made at convention to show the number of men recruited and the amount of money they have brought into the SCV? The 04 budgets do not even list the projected money they are expected to bring into the SCV.

As the Field Representatives are for all practical purposes nominated and approved for their job by the SCV CIC we should also consider what type of men they are expected to recruit. Will it be men who give their loyalty to the CIC personally, the individual who made it possible for the Field Representatives to have their jobs, or will they be men who will be loyal to the SCV Constitution even when it conflicts with the regime and agenda of the CIC? Has your Camp received any new members as a result of their efforts?

In closing let us note that although the SCV 04 budgets circulated at the 2003 General Convention fail to have a specific line item for "Heritage Defense" the Heritage Defense Committee has ways to secure funds for this use and pays out money under SCV General Executive Council guidance. It appears all but autonomous in raising funds and is quasi-autonomous in fund usage. As the money is raised/spent in the SCV name it would seem that a financial report/budget would be given at convention showing in detail all income/ expenditures but such is not the case. The Annual Report to the convention by Chief of Heritage Defense Alien Sullivant made no reference to income and listed expenses as $10,000 given to the UDC for legal expenses over Confederate Memorial Hall, Vanderbilt University and $25,000 for legal expenses to the Confederate Memorial Hall, New Orleans, LA. His report failed even to make note of other expenses given by CHD Sullivant on page 5 of the Confederate Veteran, Volume Three 2003, of $5,000 to the FL Division for legal battles or the $10,000 donated to the Rutherford Institute. The same article also refers to "other smaller donations" with no other specifics given and a notation that "Our Heritage Defense fund is in need of replenishment".

Even though the $50,000+ listed expense is not much for an organization with a $1,000,000+ budget(s) whose leadership bills it as the major Confederate heritage defense group in all the land (what has been listed is not enough to cover one worthwhile legal case and apparently dried up existing funding for this area) it still brings forward questions. How and from who are funds secured? How and to who is the funding expended? How exactly is the money put to use by those receiving it? Again we have no real picture of understanding of financial matters being provided to the membership. We may well ask why not?