> >From: Joshua Hadler <jhadler@rmi.net>
> >Reply-To: Joshua Hadler <jhadler@rmi.net>
> >To: Mac Crossett <delta-v@kscable.com>
> >CC: "Team.Net" <autox@autox.team.net>
> >Subject: Re: Turbo Update/Backdate - A Solution
> >Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 16:44:01 -0700
> >
> > This attitude of "getting shafted by Denver" is starting to stink a
> >little too...
> >
> > Yes, a number of people called the main office about the 14b to T-25
> >swap and asked about it. But there is no official response tech line in
> >the Rally/Solo dept. Anything that comes from any single SCCA official
> >or member is nothing more than well intended -advice-. The SEB is the
> >sole source of gospel. To a number of people, they seem to believe that
> >if "Denver says so" means anyone in a position of responsibility in the
> >SCCA. I often will talk to members of the SEB themselves, asking about
> >rules clarifications, or possible interpretations, and any responses I
> >get from them are taken as -advice-. Saying that "GH told me I could" or
> >anything like that doesn't hack it. I know, and I think anyone who is
> >investing in what may be a gray interpretation modification should also
> >know, is that the SEB makes the final call. GH, or Guy, or Bob, or
> >Bruce, or Howard for that matter, or any of the other SEB members singly
> >do not have the authority to categorically approve or disapprove
> >anything. They do however have a great deal of experience, and have been
> >doing this for years. They can give very good guidance, and can advise
> >how something might be interpreted by the SEB. But until the SEB meets,
> >discuses the issue, and makes a decision, any advice or suggestions
> >received from any of them should be considered just that and nothing
> >more. Maybe this isn't clear enough in the rules, I don't know. I don't
> >have my S2R here with me to check. yeah, what kind of team.net'er am I
> >without a rule book sitting right next to my computer with handy
> >reference tags on different pages. :-)
>
Josh - I think what's unclear and uncomfortable, at least to me, is how the
process is *supposed* to work. For example, last year I sent a letter
requesting a rule clarification to Denver, addressed to the SEB. The only
response I've ever gotten from the SCCA (four months later), was a letter
from Howard, cc:ed to the SEB.
That tallies precisely with what one of the puffer crowd related earlier as
his firsthand experience.
Now it's all very well to say that isn't an official SEB response - but if
so, what's being said is that the SEB may decide to "officially" decline to
respond to a clarification request from a member. That's ok too, but it
really takes the bite out of the canned "write a letter" rejoinder we hear
so often.
If all this is correct, the implication is that in lieu of an "official"
response, you just have to take your (and/or Howard's) best guess, and wait
to be protested, appeal, and then have the SEB rule.
KeS
(pretty damn confused)
|