Well, James,
You have a handle on the situation. So does KeS down there in San Diego.
When Mr. McKenna invented his solution to the "probem," it was at a time
when he was not attending SFR events, although he never failed to appear at
a Steering Committee meeting. It was there he heard the second-hand
complaints about lack of sufficient people to staff a course.
To my mind the slogan: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" applies.
We've gone through the restructure becaue a scant few of our event chairs
were unable to come up with one (1) person at different times of the day.
Apparently none of my fellow Steering Committee members could see it
either.
What the six group system guarantees is abuse of the system by some
of our "sharpies."
God love 'em. They are my fellow club members.
What it also guarantees is further abuse of the system which was
designed to have each course worker "staff" the course for an hour and then
they sit down. No big deal in the spring and fall/winter. But trust me it's
hell on course in the Sacramento Valley working for more than an hour in
the summer time. The original plan was to have sufficient time after or
before his or her run to rest. It doesn't help when an official tells a
"guest" that they don't have to wait for the time frame when their class is
running but rather they can run NOW. That alone guarantees event problems.
I consider the switch to six groups a "Pyrrhic" (spelling?)
victory, for the people who endorsed and voted for it. It's a victory in
which all parties LOSE.
We installed the eight-group system LONG before we had 300-car
fields.
I have but one vote on the Steering Committee.
--John Kelly
|