GH
1. You certainly have contradicted yourself.
Regarding the DSM's question of "how did THAT happen", you made
the statement - and I quoted you - about member input on new rulings.
Then you word for word from the book tell me about the power to do-what-
they-want (without member input) that the SEB has.
And, of course, you are right - - our input means nothing. Why didn't you
tell that to the DSM's when they asked about it, instead of trying the
politician verbage??
You only proved the point I was trying to make!! Thank You.
2. Check your e-mail, and that of every other member of the SEB, and of
the
mailbox of the SCCA - - I did just that, after the PAC received same.
I send a copy of the correspondence to this list - - word for word - - to
each
3. In the DSM argument and mine, you have PROVEN beyond a shadow of
a doubt that our input is falling on deaf ears, that the SEB word is law,
hallelujah!!
4. I will not repeat what I think of how much of these rulings are from
PAC.
I may be wrong, but what a change of character for the PAC if I am. See
my letter to George Emory.
In response to the last question - - it is called politics.
George Ryan
----------
> From: Ghsharp@aol.com
> To: quad4fiero@webzone.net; autox@autox.team.net
> Subject: Re: Fastrack, SEB Rulings, and Member Apathy
> Date: Friday, June 18, 1999 7:12 AM
>
> In a message dated 6/18/99 4:36:22 AM EST, quad4fiero@webzone.net writes:
>
> > GH Sharp wrote:
> >
> >> <snip> Since it was not a NEW
> >> rule that did not previously exist, it was not put out for member
comment.
> >
> > My response would have to be - - what happened in this month's
Fastrack?
> >
> > How did all of the PAC recommendations get ruled on, and a completely
> > opposite NEW ruling (that did not previously exist) occur WITHOUT
> > MEMBER COMMENT? The rules that were defined in the prepared catagory
> > in this month's Fastrack came from left field, with no chance for
input.
> > re:
> > " - non -production, full bodied, full fendered strictly - specified
cars
> > - - Production quantities, EPA approval, and DOT approval are not
> > required - - " (Are we opening the catagory up to black market cars,
now??)
> > and "Cars which are classed by the designation "NOC" in Appendix A,
> > Prepared Catagory, will be allowed to compete in AP - -"
> >
> > Maybe I missed it, but I sure do not recall the request for member
input.
>
> Well, let's see...
> 1. Read the Foreword in the rulebook, along with the definition of
duties of
> the SEB, and the Core Values. Did you find anything there that states
that
> ANY rule change must go out for member comment? The SEB puts things
> out for member comment to gather information, to gauge how competitors
> feel about a rulebook item, and as a courtesy to the membership. We do
> so whenever possible, unless time constraints (publishing deadlines,
> adequate time for comment, and deadlines for implementation of the rule)
> prevent us from doing so.
>
> 2. You'll notice that the items you refer to have an implementation date
of
> 1/1/2000. All rulebook changes that we propose must be approved by the
> SCCA Board of Directors, so you can still comment to the Prepared
> Committee, the SEB, or the BOD if you like.
>
> 3. Allowing member input does not guarantee that we will agree with your
> point of view. The last sentence in the Core Values paragraph states,
> "It is recognized that an individual decision may at times result in a
> disadvantage or increased cost to some individual members, but that the
> decision reached is based on the long-term benefit for the majority of
the
> members."
>
> 4. Jim McKamey is the head of the Prepared Advisory Committee. If you
> would like an explanation of the thinking behind these proposals, why not
> contact him, I'm sure he'll be happy to discuss them with you.
>
> > And one side note, about the ruling not to separate the AP class
(despite
> > PAC recommendations and letters written) BECAUSE THE WINNING CARS
> > (that created the imbalance in the first place) DEPARTED THE CLASS - -
> > what a precedence to be set!!! What happens if they change their mind?
> > Maybe they will sell those cars to me!! Why could I not just replicate
> > theirs - -
>
> > I will bet that if that happened in a stock class (a totally dominant
> driver/car
> > left the class, so no adjustment was necessary) then there would be a
real
> > ruckus!!
> >
> > Of course, it really doesn't matter, does it. My fellow AP competitors
seem
> > to make a lot of noise at events and banquets around the country, but
are
> > truly apathetic to what really is occurring to their class.
> >
> > Guess that makes me a radical because I care, I notice, I comment, I
write
> > letters, and am vocal on these issues??
>
> No, it just doesn't guarantee that all the rules will come out to your
> complete
> satisfaction. The Prepared Committee is made up of long-time National
> competitors from the Prepared classes. They, and the SEB, put a lot of
> time and thought into these issues. The Board of Directors will do
likewise.
> None of us decide these things on a whim, or to satisfy some personal
> vendetta against a particular make or type of car, or against any
individual.
> Even if we wanted to do that, how would we get more than a dozen other
> people on the SEB and the BOD to go along with it?
>
> GHS
|