Because of semantics, I have changed the subject back
to it's original wording.
The sky is not falling, but there are problems with the system that
allows these things to happen. And Prepared is not the only catagory
to feel the pain.
It is not entirely the SCCA's fault, it is a huge beaurocracy, a big
wheel that takes a lot to turn. A single competitor can, and often is,
overwhelmed by the "system". Sometimes, the perception is (and
mine was) that the system seems to steamroll over that competitor.
I have found that the biggest issue is communication. How does an
individual actually communicate with those that have a hand with the
recommendations, the first step in the process? Wouldn't this be the
place to start?
In my recent case, would it not have been better if the competitor
(all the Fiero owners, in this case) knew, and maybe even had an
opportunity to comment, or have some input - - before it was
published? Actually, before it was presented to the SEB?
There is a Prepared Advisory Committee (PAC) which Jim McKamey
chairs. I have talked with him, and he agrees that the average
competitor (me included) does not really have a clue about the inner
workings in this organization, we just see the results. The average
competitor is not normally a part of the process when the various rules
and tech bulletins are drafted in committee. The committee really has
no method to communicate with the competitor if they wanted to.
So this total lack of communication has created more than one tech
bulletin being issued to correct oversights in another, or a tech bulletin
to "clarify" a poorly written rule, or a rule that, by it's mere language,
is
confusing to the competitor it was written for.
Well, in the Prepared community, there is now a way to communicate
with the PAC, with Jim McKamey, and with others in Prepared. I
concede that team.net is not the proper way to do that, although by
shear numbers the Stock and Street Prepared catagories seem to have
some limited success.
Jim McKamey was the first PAC member to join a new mailing list,
developed solely for the communications discussed above. Any interested
Perpared (only) competitor can join. even Howard has been invited. All
in the interest of helping the average person (me, for example) know and
understand what is happening with the proposals from the time they are
drafted (even to the point of being able to have some input for
consideration)sent from committee to Board, and the process from that point
to publishing
of that ruling. Also to give the PAC a means to contact the competitor for
information, and us them.
Don't know how it is going to work, but it is worth a try. If it keeps one
other person from feeling bushwacked, then it will be worth it.
You can read about this list, and join if interested, by going to
SCCAPrepared@egroups.com
G
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom_Holt <tholt@ccsi.com>
To: <quad4fiero@webzone.net>; <NEOKLA-SoloII@egroups.com>;
<DuncanSCCA@aol.com>; <Bwinters4@compuserve.com>; <samandgreg@uswest.net>;
<brnrubr@midusa.net>; <joetul@webzone.net>
Cc: <autox@autox.team.net>; <FieroRacingList@egroups.com>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2000 11:32 AM
Subject: Re: The Rape of Prepared Catagories (was:Trying to catch the
spotlight)
> Morning George,
>
> >You say you have been through it all, Tom. I say you have been
> >through only some of it.
>
> I only claimed to have been through the FP-AP-FP shuffle, I would never
> suggest that I have been through it ALL...
>
> You are correct that I have not been a direct target of any tech bulletin
> that would have instantly reclassed me or negatively affected me. I can
only
> imagine the frustration that can cause. As you pointed out, the bulletin
> that drove you to announce you exit from all things SCCA was an error and
> that was corrected. If there is still an issue that is putting you at an
> unfair competitve disadvantage I'm not aware of it.
>
> >I have received more than a dozen replies off list to my post in the
> >past few hours. Yours is a first. The first to reply on list (and Cc:ing
> >all). The first to roll over and say it is all right. The first that is
OK
> >with what is happeneing to this catagory and how it is happening.
>
>
> Roll over? I thought did it with a little more emphasis than that! I
> actually sat up! ;) If I disagree with you, it's not because I am
apathetic.
> I do care. I want to see more competition in our class and the other
> Prepared classes. You have gone on at length about the persecution of the
> Fieros and then spoken in vague terms about the rape of Prepared. I won't
> disagree with you on anything you tell me that is Fiero specific, but that
> is all I have heard from you. I've also heard from the Kelly's about the
> plight of their 7. I'm not saying they don't have a good point...Beyond
> those two examples what else is SO screwed up? I would like to hear that
so
> that I can be better informed and perhaps help contribute to the solution.
> You mention that attendance has declined in most of the classes and blame
> the rules without specific examples. I'm not saying your wrong, I just
want
> some specific examples, until I am enlightened I will continue to believe
> that the sky is NOT falling.
>
> >I am gathering this info for some articles I am writing, and for some
> >"ammo" to use, say at the town hall this fall. So, I will not address
> >most points in this forum quite yet.
>
> I look forward to reading those articles and hope to see you at the Town
> Hall meeting this year. I also hope the SEB will have the flexibility to
> delay the meeting as long as necessary so that members competing in the
5th
> heat will be able to attend (unlike last year).
>
> Tom
>
>
|