In a message dated 6/18/99 4:36:22 AM EST, quad4fiero@webzone.net writes:
> GH Sharp wrote:
>
>> <snip> Since it was not a NEW
>> rule that did not previously exist, it was not put out for member comment.
>
> My response would have to be - - what happened in this month's Fastrack?
>
> How did all of the PAC recommendations get ruled on, and a completely
> opposite NEW ruling (that did not previously exist) occur WITHOUT
> MEMBER COMMENT? The rules that were defined in the prepared catagory
> in this month's Fastrack came from left field, with no chance for input.
> re:
> " - non -production, full bodied, full fendered strictly - specified cars
> - - Production quantities, EPA approval, and DOT approval are not
> required - - " (Are we opening the catagory up to black market cars, now??)
> and "Cars which are classed by the designation "NOC" in Appendix A,
> Prepared Catagory, will be allowed to compete in AP - -"
>
> Maybe I missed it, but I sure do not recall the request for member input.
Well, let's see...
1. Read the Foreword in the rulebook, along with the definition of duties of
the SEB, and the Core Values. Did you find anything there that states that
ANY rule change must go out for member comment? The SEB puts things
out for member comment to gather information, to gauge how competitors
feel about a rulebook item, and as a courtesy to the membership. We do
so whenever possible, unless time constraints (publishing deadlines,
adequate time for comment, and deadlines for implementation of the rule)
prevent us from doing so.
2. You'll notice that the items you refer to have an implementation date of
1/1/2000. All rulebook changes that we propose must be approved by the
SCCA Board of Directors, so you can still comment to the Prepared
Committee, the SEB, or the BOD if you like.
3. Allowing member input does not guarantee that we will agree with your
point of view. The last sentence in the Core Values paragraph states,
"It is recognized that an individual decision may at times result in a
disadvantage or increased cost to some individual members, but that the
decision reached is based on the long-term benefit for the majority of the
members."
4. Jim McKamey is the head of the Prepared Advisory Committee. If you
would like an explanation of the thinking behind these proposals, why not
contact him, I'm sure he'll be happy to discuss them with you.
> And one side note, about the ruling not to separate the AP class (despite
> PAC recommendations and letters written) BECAUSE THE WINNING CARS
> (that created the imbalance in the first place) DEPARTED THE CLASS - -
> what a precedence to be set!!! What happens if they change their mind?
> Maybe they will sell those cars to me!! Why could I not just replicate
> theirs - -
> I will bet that if that happened in a stock class (a totally dominant
driver/car
> left the class, so no adjustment was necessary) then there would be a real
> ruckus!!
>
> Of course, it really doesn't matter, does it. My fellow AP competitors seem
> to make a lot of noise at events and banquets around the country, but are
> truly apathetic to what really is occurring to their class.
>
> Guess that makes me a radical because I care, I notice, I comment, I write
> letters, and am vocal on these issues??
No, it just doesn't guarantee that all the rules will come out to your
complete
satisfaction. The Prepared Committee is made up of long-time National
competitors from the Prepared classes. They, and the SEB, put a lot of
time and thought into these issues. The Board of Directors will do likewise.
None of us decide these things on a whim, or to satisfy some personal
vendetta against a particular make or type of car, or against any individual.
Even if we wanted to do that, how would we get more than a dozen other
people on the SEB and the BOD to go along with it?
GHS
|