On Mon, 21 Mar 2005, Mark Mervich wrote:
> As I told the other person who had this problem, This is the way Dirk
> trained me. But more important, our organization is staffed by
> volunteers, not professionals. In order to keep the tech inspection
> team from not having to interpret the rules we make things a bit
> arbitrary and attempt to error on the side of being too safe. 99+% of
> the time, it works well.
Sounds like, for the other 3 or fewer cases per event, you might be able
to use an escalation procedure that *does* interpret the rulebook, since
that's what people are, or should, preparing to.
People can't be expected to accept determinations made on the grounds of
"we make things a bit arbitrary" or "this is how Dirk trained me". There
should be an objective guide, aligned with or part of the rulebook or
regional supps. Figure out what y'all are going to check (you probably
have a checklist already), publish it, and put it in the rules. Then
*you* have backing for your position, and the competitors aren't taken by
surprise by arbitrary decisions. Win-win.
KeS
|