Listen to yourself, Josh. Are you not aware that if it happened more than
five years ago, it might as well have never had happened at all (had
happened? Have had happened? English is so hard...) The nerve of you to
bring that up. You're starting to sound old.
Katie
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Josh Sirota [SMTP:jss@marimba.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 06, 1999 4:50 PM
> To: Walter Fooshee
> Cc: autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Require SCCA membership?
>
> I can't believe that no one has yet mentioned that the San Francisco
> Region required membership for decades, before that rule was recinded in
> the last few years to try to help increase turnout (we'd lost a couple
> of local sites, and attendance waned as we had to travel further -- and
> at the same time the economy went through a downturn). Even while
> membership was required, there were several local events back then at
> over 200 entries, and a Divisional ('89, I believe) with over 300
> entries, if memory serves.
>
> It seems to me that if you are going to limit entries, then limiting it
> to members makes a lot of sense. After all, anyone can become a member,
> and then the club gets something out of it too.
>
> Josh
>
> Walter Fooshee wrote:
> >
> > Solo II is designated by SCCA at the regional level to be open to
> novices, as an entry-level version of the sport. I don't think a region
> would be _allowed_ to require membership.
> >
> > Walter Fooshee
> > Dixie Region Probe GT
> >
> > >>> <Gemery@aol.com> 12/06/99 12:41PM >>>
> > Oregon Region is investigating requiring SCCA membership for the
> majority of
> > Solo II events (like 70-80% of the events). How many other SCCA regions
> are
> > doing this? And, if your region is doing so, what was the impetus?
> >
> > George Emery
> > gemery@aol.com
|