I also sent this to the Evolution list, sorry to those
that see it twice.
I noticed in the April FasTrack a proposal made at the
BOD meeting
that apparently failed but still looked concerning to
me. The text
is below.
>From April 2004 FasTrack:
"Mike Engelke introduced a discussion of
clarifying the geographic boundaries guaranteed
to every Region by the SCCA, Inc.
Bylaws. The proposal was to duplicate the
Operations Manual statement that exists for
Club Racing for several other programs. The
following motion was made during the
Wednesday session.
MOTION: To add the following statement
into the Operations Manual into sections:
(Solo) 6.4.1 Any event held by a Region in the
physical territory of another Region requires
the written approval of the host Region or the
National Board of Directors as a condition of
calendar listing or Sanction. Existing agreements
contrary to this policy will continue in
effect. (RoadRally) 7.2.4 Any headquarters
for conducting an event held by a Region in
the physical territory of another Region
requires the written approval of the host
Region or the National Board of Directors as
a condition of calendar listing or Sanction.
Existing agreements contrary to this policy
will continue in effect. (Engelke/Sauce) see
below for vote result
MOTION: To table above motion
(Wednesday). (Campbell/Holtz) PASSED
MOTION: To open tabled motion (Sunday).
(Clark/Sauce) PASSED
After the successful attempt to open the
original motion a vote was taken. The
Motion FAILED."
I don't believe that this sort of proposal would be in
the best
interests of the Solo program. I realize that there
are areas that
have ongoing disputes over site usage, but I feel a
proposal such as
this one has the potential to spread that sort of
infighting to
other areas that currently share sites amicably. I
personally don't
see how this proposal benefits the majority of
soloists and I don't
think it helps in the growth of the Solo program. With
the ongoing
struggle to find good sites I would rather see
proposals that assist
regions to work together to solve site disputes
instead of rules
added such as this one that put sites in the sole
control of a
single region. Sites such as the Grissom site in Peru
that are
currently shared among several regions could be
adversely impacted
by this. I am glad this failed to pass, but I am
concerned that it
could reappear.
Steve Elzinga
#55 CM
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Get better spam protection with Yahoo! Mail.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
|