Immediate input needed - FC

Chas,

The Advisory Committee almost unanimously was against the proposed manifold. Honestly it was difficult to add much to the discussion given the high quality of the letters that were received.

I can't tell you what the CRB did with our recommendation, perhaps Dave or Stan can chime in.

Is it spring yet?

John

P.S. Actually, the real thanks should go to all of the members who took the time to read through the material and put together their letters. That certainly made a significant impact.

Thanks!!!!!

From what Phil wrote it sounds like the CRB still wanted to allow the manifold. they just modified the specs some more. Thankfully the BoD voted it down. Sure would love to know why the CRB, after all the letters, still thought the manifold in some form was a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinFirlein

From what Phil wrote it sounds like the CRB still wanted to allow the manifold. they just modified the specs some more. Thankfully the BoD voted it down. Sure would love to know why the CRB, after all the letters, still thought the manifold in some form was a good idea.

---

My thoughts exactly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KevinFirlein

From what Phil wrote it sounds like the CRB still wanted to allow the manifold. they just modified the specs some more. Thankfully the BoD voted it down. Sure would love to know why the CRB, after all the letters, still thought the manifold in some form was a good idea.

---

Like Chas, I wonder why the CRB would persist, also...

Why oh why aren't the minutes of those meetings published in their entirety?

Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

What if the CRB had passed it along with a much smaller restrictor? Not saying it is what happened, but they could have made it where it was no where near competitive and the BoD voted against to save face with Elan and say "see, we are still looking out for you"

What I find kind of ironic is that just by the shear number of requests against, one could assume that the largest majority of people expressing against Elan are customers...

John "stir the pot, where's Finnelli when you need him" Robinson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by John Robinson II

What if the CRB had passed it along with a much smaller restrictor? Not saying it is what happened, but they could have made it where it was no where near competitive and the BoD voted against to save face with Elan and say "see, we are still looking out for you"

---

This would have opened the door to many never-ending variations of the Zetec, leading to the "engine of the week" problem, as we tried to equalize each variety.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Kirchner

Why oh why aren't the minutes of those meetings published in their entirety?

Sunlight is a great disinfectant.

---

Supposedly, they will be (at least a summary), in the next Fastrack.

When the minutes are published they will say that the CRB proposal was turned down. It dosn't quite tell the story : the CRB recommended a 1mm smaller restrictor size - a definite
underdog as this would have been smaller than the old Formula Pacific restrictor which was 4hp less than the current size. I have no doubt the CRB could have equated the two manifolds given enough time and data but the BOD felt the manifold was the wrong thing to introduce based on your member input.
You have to remember that the CRB is supposed to be more of a technical body and the BOD the policy maker so its not a surprise that they came up with a technical solution to the problem presented to them.
Phil

Fastrak will probably say:

"Alternate manifold for FC was discussed."

Why do we as members allow this as a means of minutes? If this happened in my workplace the person taking notes of the meeting would be relieved of this task.

Tim

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TimW

Fastrak will probably say:

"Alternate manifold for FC was discussed."

Why do we as members allow this as a means of minutes? If this happened in my workplace the person taking notes of the meeting would be relieved of this task.

Tim

---

The person taking the notes is not the person publishing them in Fastrack, difficult to place the blame on him/her. I do agree however, that we should be privy to all of the details of their discussions and know exactly what was said/done. The SCCA is a member based club and we all have a right to know what management is doing, even behind closed doors.

Nick/Tim
Fastrack will publish the CRB proposal and it will be listed as 'not approved'.
Discussion was very brief on the conference call and was more about process. The item was left till last after routine business. To be honest you couldn't have even made minutes out of the discussion - it went straight to a 13-0 No vote. I'm not sure what you are criticizing in our discussion - it came up as a proposal and we voted no.
By the time we had input by E Mail and phone for two weeks solid I don't think it was something that needed a lot of discussion. We listened and we voted. BTW a 13-0 vote is just about unheard of on most issues. The way it will be in Fastrack will be the same as the last 20+ years - our board secretary is one of the Directors and keeping it accurate while a meeting is in progress is paramount, theres no way you could include everything that happens in a meeting or call..
If you want the straight scoop on any of this pick up the phone and call me - half the FC field did. There is no subtle innuendo or undertones - it was the wrong thing to do.
Phil

Phil,

I'm not the black helicopter sort, in fact just the opposite. I think that the club volunteers that give of their time and energy are to be commended.

That being said, there is a definite disconnect between the policymakers and the general membership. As was seen by this rule change proposal on this site, many club members are of the opinion it was a another SCCA back door deal. Simply spend 20 minutes surfing the various websites catering to SCCA groups and you see a lot of conflicting stories and misinformation regarding the club. Why? I suggest that one of the main reasons is the small blurbs in fastrack give very little information to the general membership. There is a vacuum as to how and why decisions are made by the BOD and this alone creates the perception of impropriety. Information sharing has been a nagging problem with SCCA for many years. It is time for the BOD to change that perception amongst the club members.


As to how things have been done for twenty years, it is now the year 2008 and we have simple technology that allows the free exchange of accurate information to the membership in real time. The time to utilize such technology such as webcasting to inform the membership and include all members in the "process" is long overdue. We all agree there is nothing to hide so why not make complete meetings available to the general membership? As with any other club, we do recognize the need for executive session, as long as it does not consist of the majority of each and every meeting.
I call on you and the rest of the BOD to start utilizing such technology ASAP.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

Nick/Tim
The way it will be in Fastrack will be the same as the last 20+ years - our board secretary is one of the Directors and keeping it accurate while a meeting is in progress is paramount, theres no way you could include everything that happens in a meeting or call..

---

That is my point...the 'such and such was discussed' for the last 20 years is the problem. It provides virtually no information to anyone who wasn't there.

It is not the job of the listed Secretary on a C-Corp article to take the minutes of the company board meeting. C level people generally don't know shorthand (yes, its still used) It is his/her responsibility to make sure the minutes of the meeting are accurate and distributed to those who are privileged to consume them, but someone who works for him/her does the note taking so s/he can stay engaged and provide his value to the discussion, which is likely more worthwhile than as scribe.

Why can't there be a knowledgeable stenographer/scribe on not just the meetings about FC but all the calls/meetings so there is more meaningful output from our leaders? I'd pay an extra $5 membership per year (~$200k annually) to have someone scribe meetings thoroughly to get valuable info to us. The Secretary reviews the notes taken, signs off on them as accurate and publishes them (after all, he was engaged in the meeting and would know). Its not a cost of paper anymore, the PDF can be bigger for not a lot of cost.

From a member's perspective, its the understanding the means about how the end that came about that is 1) important to the members and 2) saves the board having to repeatedly fight down the rumors that erupt when all you see is an end that apparently has no logic to it, people just speculate on how things got that way.

Yes, I acknowledge that we are a volunteer based organization. But the reality is that while the players are not paid to participate in our governance, they are governing a sizable amount of cashflow through the organization and amongst the suppliers, members, manufacturers, etc. We must as a membership and governance board act like a professional organization when there is that much money at stake even if those chartered to do so on the greater membership's behalf are volunteers.

Tim

Phil,
Thanks for having our back on this one. While i agree members should have information on the substance of the proceedings, publishing every detail will limit the abil;ity to reach correct decisions as everyone makes sure to CYA.

Jim, That is what closed door executive sessions are for. There is certainly nothing wrong with some of that and at the level of the BOD it is to be expected.

Regardless of all the closed / open door sessions and details of minutes, the system did work.

Albeit, it took massive input from the racer community, but the end result was what the stakeholders wanted.

The process does seem to have some flaws. Yes, the end result worked out in the members best interest. I have to say the aluminum head and Elan manifold situations caused a lot of stress and effort to be expended to eliminate problems which never should have escalated the way they did. Things should be changed to include better if not mandated communications between the various boards and committees. A specific accountability chain with no individual able to implement decisions without the appropriate multilevel board/committee approval or at the minimum at least mandated exchange of information/notification.

Closed door sessions are at times appropriate in the racing business to ensure open discussions, the representatives need to be able to vote without fear of repercussion from the supplier community or whomever. But more detailed info should be available at least between the boards and committees and to the membership whenever possible. But again, although it did take a lot of effort on many peoples parts, the process worked and the correct decisions have been obtained.


-Rick Silver

The part that seemed to be missing to me was we never heard anyone say, "I'm the person who proposed the change and here is why I thought it was a good idea." Something like that would have helped the situation, IMO. I think the Elan manifold rule was initiated by a CRB member, but I don't know that for sure. Maybe it's too much to ask CRB or BOD members to defend their positions on internet boards, but that might have helped this in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rick Silver

Closed door sessions are at times appropriate in the racing business to ensure open discussions, the representatives need to be able to vote without fear of repercussion from the supplier community or whomever. But more detailed info should be available at least between the boards and committees and to the membership whenever possible. But again, although it did take a lot of effort on many peoples parts, the process worked and the correct decisions have been obtained.


-Rick Silver

---

Rick-

representation or volunteer work without "accountability" doesn't work! if you're not willing to put your name on a yes or no vote and provide your rationale to the members effected then maybe that's a major part of the problem with all the Club's nameless committees, boards, gatekeepers, and ad hoc working groups...........................................

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

When the minutes are published they will say that the CRB proposal was turned down. It dosn't quite tell the story : the CRB recommended a 1mm smaller restrictor size - a definite
underdog as this would have been smaller than the old Formula Pacific restrictor which was 4hp less than the current size. I have no doubt the CRB could have equated the two manifolds given enough time and data but the BOD felt the manifold was the wrong thing to introduce based on your member input.
You have to remember that the CRB is supposed to be more of a technical body and the BOD the policy maker so its not a surprise that they came up with a technical solution to the problem presented to them.
Phil

---

Thanks Phil that is exactly what I was looking for. I don't think anyone should be criticizing the BoD minutes, it is more a question of what happens in the CRB meetings that seems mysterious.

I find it deeply troubling that the CRB would recommend anything other than disallowing the intake based on the overwhelming membership feedback and the recommendation of the Formula Car Advisory Committee. The fact that the BoD voted unanimously (which almost never happens) to turn it down only adds to the question of how they could make such a recomendation. They obviously are not in sync with the membership, advisory committee or the BoD.

Chas
I think they did the right thing - they gave us a technical middle ground if we chose to accept it. They knew it was unlikely to pass but it gave us the option. It did not include the EPP map as a control as the first proposal did.
Phil

If you enjoy sausage, maybe it's best to not see how it is made.

One would think that there would be a celebration when the BoD voted 13 to zip in favor of the status quo.

I still have an unease about the future of FC and the resolution of the engine issues that still are ahead of us. That unease is made worse because of the fact that the same people who orchestrated this mess are still in charge.

What totally eludes me is why those people (CRB) who have the authority to propose or block rules changes and adjust the specifications of those rules once implemented felt that the defeated proposal was in the best interest of the FC participants. What is even more suspicious are the tactics they tried to use to get the rule implemented. If they had succeeded the Élan engine would have passes as a spec line change without membership input.

The Aluminum head is another example of less than full disclosure. We were told that this would be a "fully machines part" to be used as delivered. Several members of the BoD told me that was what they thought they had approved. What we have instead is a head that is at least a year late, and is not legal as delivered and there are not restrictions on modifications. At the center of this are the same people.

One thing is for sure, to my knowledge, Phil is the only person in a position of authority who has a financial stake in this fight. An FC probably represents a minimum investment of $50,000 with no upper limit. The people supplying products to those competitors have investments many times greater in FC. The CRB is privileged to be playing with other people's money. The real prestige of SCCA is that the club sits on top of a money spending organization that spends in the hundreds of million dollars.

I really enjoy the challenge of Van Diemen and Élan on the track, but the competition should be confined to the track. The things that make FV, FF, and FC really challenging classes are: lots of good drivers, with a variety of equipment competing on the tracks of this country. To try to achieve dominance in a class by rigging the rules is what this whole thing smelled like to me. In the past, when there were rules problems, all the manufacturers would get together, face to face and hammer out new rules. Most of the rules for these classes were done that way. And those rules have endured.

Phil deserves a lot of credit for his efforts in resolving this crisis. My thanks Phil.

Steve
While I might have an FC in the shop (Rossella's 97 Tatuus) and have been involved in the class since its inception I wouldn't say it really affected my rationale on the Elan issue. I would also point out that I was not alone on the BOD in my efforts - I ended up trying to resolve some of the issues with both sides at the behest of our Chairman RJ Gordy because I already knew most of the players involved, I had spent 10 years on the CRB and a few on the advisory committee. There were other directors equally as vocal on the issue.

There are some issues that one could take up with the CRB but this was really dumped in their lap at the last moment to deal with - manifolds were already out being tested at that point. The phones started ringing in early Dec after PRI. It was given to Dave Gomberg as one of his first tasks after joining the CRB in December as a work in progress. As a technical excercise it would not have been difficult to bring it in as an underdog and thats what the CRB proposed. As I said in an earlier post, it left the decision squarely in our hands as the elected members.

The aluminum head has been problematic all the way along as little of the original "as delivered" remains. I'm sure it has been dealt with on other threads buts its looking similar to the advent of the 85 pistons and a couple of other things over the life of the class - not too earth shattering in its final form. Again we had a manufacturer trying to make a better piece than the original which was not what was required.

What can we learn from all this - improve the process, stick to it, remove some of the pressure points from influencing decisions, push manufacturers to supply at least a prototype for examination before any approval process begins, make sure the mix of committee and CRB members is correct, etc.

Phil

Phil,

I REALLY appreciate your efforts and feedback. Your posts are doing a lot, IMO, to dispell some of the suspicion of the "closed-door" meetings, and also give us competitors hope that the process will be better in the future.

I had hoped, as this issue proceeded, it would result in making the "process" more open, and force SCCA to make it more formally stated, so everyone would know what to expect in regard to this sort of proposal.

Now that we have resolution of the initial issue, it appears that this may actually happen.

Thank you, sincerely,

Phil;

I had a lot of exchanges with my director and he did an excellent job as well. I also had several exchanges with the other directors that I know personally. I know that there were many directors very upset by this manifold deal.


You have an intuitive understanding of what will and won't work in FV, FF, and FC. This and a lot of other events leave one to question whether the current composition of the CRB has the same understanding that was present when you were the chairman or John Grubb before you.

I think that we should have the engine builders work out the engine rules. They are the professionals and know how best to keep each other in check. The CRB does not really have the expertise to do that job. The CRB can outline what they want to see in the rules but only the experts can write them to achieve those goals. The experts can also tell them if the goals are not obtainable. This approach has worked in the past, lets use it again.

From the May Fastrack:


Formula/Sports Racer

1. FC – Support for FC changes (Andersen/Cohn). Thank you for your input.
2. FC – Opposition to FC changes (108 letters). Thank you for your input.
3. FC – Thank you (8 letters). Thank you for your input.