Accountability
Lady and Sirs:
recent unseemly events in very basic non-compliance with the Club rules making
process have caused all sorts of membership discussion and input. other than a much appreciated decision by the Board there's been no apparant action(s) taken. while it's obvious to everyone that the Club's rules making and configuration control process need work, the more important and threatening problem that requires immediate attention by the Board in my view is the complete lack of accountability (other than the Board's voting record) in the conduct of the membership's business.
unaccountable nameless volunteer gatekeepers is a prescription for chaos; no one is responsible or accountable!! it's my opinion the Board has to look no farther than the CRB and the F/SRAC for a glaring example of the status quo continuing to go wrong unchecked. the CRB apparantly has not seen a rules change it wasn't prepared to recommend as a "clarrification or rewrite". the FC manifold situation is just one of many!! TB 08-02 published as part of the February Fastrack contains other recent blatant examples in what is described as a "rewrite and organization for clarity" of the FF engine rules. D.1.e.4 ADDS (ie: a NEW rule) ring groove widths as controlled dimensions; basicly a good idea if done per the Club's rules and with dimensions that can be objectively verified. I doubt there's an engine with track time in the country that can be shown to be compliant with a second groove width of 0.0795" plus or minus 0.00005". D.1.s.2.A ADDS (ie: a new rule) a requirement of 5/16" diameter to the intake manifold bolts; and provides no location/extent or tolorance for the dimension (the head is tapped 5/16-18). the CRB has apparantly not seen a sole source part without a specification, source control drawing, or other means of objectively verifing compliance it wasn't prepared to recommend. two sole source forged pistons in the last four years in both FF and FC is symtomatic of the problem. the CRB has apparantly not seem an imaginary sole source part (ie: non-existent, not even a prototype) without a specification, source control drawing, or other objectively verifiable means of verifing compliance it wasn't prepared to recommend. the aluminum head for 2-liter Pinto's in FC is the crowning example of the problems that are created with the approval of non-existant parts AND the approval of non-existent parts without Club specification(s) where there is a need for parity. the CRB apparantly has no fundamental undestanding of what constitutes a rule; a well written rule specifies one attribute/requirement that can be objectively verified. the FF engine examples above are good examples of the continuing unacceptable attempts at writing rules; they create confusion and propogate the need for the Club's bloated infrastructure of other unaccountable gatekeepers. undefined terms are not objectively verifiable! intent is not something that can be objectively verified and has no place in our rules.
when constructive private communication(s) go unanswered or ignored, the membership today has no other option than dealing with the Board directly. no information or insight is availble that would support isolation of the problem(s) to one or more names. is there a strong leader leading the group in the wrong direction? the whole group(s) that don't get it? a majority with objectives not consistent with the membership's wishes? or a silent minority too meek to resist the leader or majority on principles? painting the entire group(s) with the same brush is wrong but in the absense of data the membership has no option since there's currently no accountability.
I urge the Board to begin requiring and including in the Club's public record as part of ALL clarifications and rules changes the following information:
1.) name of the originator
optional: 1a.) statements of support for the recommended action by name, NOT group, board, or comittee
2.) statement of the problem
3.) potential solutions considered
4.) rationale for selection of recommended action
5.) current (is) wording in GCR
6.) recommended (should be) wording for GCR
7.) methodology for compliance verification
8.) effected members
9.) financial impact to effected members
10.) recommended effectivity date
inclusion of the requirement to provide the Board with the above information would make a welcome change to the Club's rules making/cofiguration control process. it was my expereince in industry that the single most effective means of improving BOTH content and quality of change requests was requiring someone to put their name on the document and be prepared to speak to its merits if there were questions. given all change is bad, requiring the short list of information above will significantly improve the Board's probability of only approving well thought-out unavoidable change that minimizes the global impact after receiving input from the membership.
Art
artesmith@earthlink.net
Reply With Quote
