Alan Pozner wrote:
> Without the SEB, SCAC etc.
> the competition would be much less fair.
Definitely. And those folks do it for free. If anyone doesn't like
what's being done, they can see to it that the salaries of the committee
members are cut in half. OTOH, if you think they're doing great, you can
have their salaries doubled. ;<)
> I applaud the work the paid
> SCCA folks are doing in Colorado.
I have a more qualified view of that issue. I've seen a number of
decisions made by fulltime staff that I would assert are not in the
general best interests of SCCA members. That's not to say I disagree
with every decision.
> I doubt any of them consider it "just
> a job"
Beside the point. It IS a job, and they're paid to do it. Producing the
desired results is part of doing the job. Being criticized and/or
second-guessed by the membership goes with the territory. And,
occasionally, criticism is warranted.
>and put in lots of extra effort because of love of the sport.
I wouldn't contest that. Nonetheless, they are paid to carry out policy.
It is my observation that some of them attempt to make policy. That's
not proper, as it creates obvious conflicts of interest.
> was shocked to hear the negative comments about Howard Duncan a few
> weeks ago on this list.
"Shocked?" Howard can be generally doing a good job (which I believe he
is), and still not be perfect. Read his letters to NAP for a start. It's
my honest belief that a paid official of SCCA has no business engaging
in personal attacks against his/her critics, but that's exactly what
Howard has done. That's not "negative," it's just an observation of
objectively verifiable fact.
> After seeing him in action I have nothing but
I have a high degree of respect for Howard as well. I just don't believe
he's above criticism.