Joel Lipperini - Suspended from SCCA Racing (SOMs pull license)

Matt
The AS debacle led to wholesale changes in the system which should be evident this year. Heads did roll and there were unhappy people within the stewards cadre. They screwed up, the BOD admitted the mistakes and had an independent investigation which is a first - I think the racers on the BOD made a difference and will continue to do so.

I think there are issues with the older stewards out there (your division retires them down here!!) but I don't think this battle is one you should fight without the facts.

If you want to start a different thread on stewards I'll happily participate

Phil

You're right that many of us are assuming facts not in evidence. It could be that it was a well-deserved penalty, it just doesn't appear to be such on the face. Yet. :D

brian, if this is the outcome over this situation...yes....i definitely want to see it changed. that's not my idea of how i want my club to be run

I thought that the Stewards "power" "went away" after the last checker of the day or at least after the results were final for the last session.

If that is not true, I have seen more than a few stewards rather insutlting to others at Saturday nite parties on track property.

Who punishes them.

Some of the things I have heard said and have been said to me would easily qualify as a breach of the GCR and actually had someone physicalyy threaten me once.

But No one ever takes me seriously and after the last flag of the day and the beer begins to flow, tongues get too loose sometimes.

But if Joel got penalized for an action after the last checker of the day, then anyone who misbehaves at the Saturday nite party should be dealt with by the CS and the SOM's as if the incident had happened in the middle of a session.

How is that for creative interpertation of the GCR?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

I thought that the Stewards "power" "went away" after the last checker of the day or at least after the results were final for the last session.

---

I'm not sure where the idea that the Club relinquishes either control or responsibility after the last checker of the day comes from, but . . . per the GCR . .

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]For the purpose of this section, an event begins when registration opens and ends when the driver, entrant, and all crew members from that team have left the track property at the conclusion of the event.[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Univers]
[FONT=Univers]From my experience, most tracks exercise way less control over a race weekend than RA. There are RA officials in the tower and not all of them are Club officials. There are IMO several conflicts of interest in the way events are conducted. Be that as it may, at the end of the day it is their sandbox and the sanctioning bodies (including SCCA) seem to accept the amount of control required by RA.[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]This situation has elicited comments regarding many aspects of both our systems and our society. Abuse of power; disregard of authority; using personal logic to combat a perceived flawed system; inabilities of several people to communicate; further inabilities of the same people to solve/settle issues honestly and factually; and, most of all, differing perspectives of actual events. Some want to blame RA, others Joel,and yet others the Stewards.[/FONT]

[FONT=Univers]In any event, control was lost at the very beginning and feathers were ruffled which always leads to chest puffing and a loss of logical communications. [/FONT]

[/FONT]

I have long equated arguing with the Stewards to taunting the proverbial dynamite monkey. While it's often expedient to blame the person doing the taunting, and it's certainly a pragmatic expression of self-preservation to avoid taunting, I've often wondered: why the f*ck do we have a dynamite monkey in charge of the process in the first place?


Cheers,
Rennie

We usually refer to it as "monkey with a gun". Someone's going to get shot - maybe you, maybe the monkey, maybe an innocent bystander, but it's just too fascinating to look the other way....

I can see a new smilie now... a chimp waving a pistol, jumping up and down.....

I'm going to disagree. Giving people with a napoleon complex unlimited power and no oversight is always a recipe for hilarity.

I don't know anything about this situation, but in general if a driver tells me 2+2=5 and a steward says that 2+2=4. It's 5.

The possibility of an organized track walk will hopefully be one of the positive items that will come out of this entire situation.

Joel
Mike Smith, as Chief of Competitor Services, had nothing to do with the American Sedan tech situation at the 2009 Runoffs. His group's sole function was to receive, track and route paperwork. OK he was a steward and at Road America so he must be guilty. I was there too so I must have had something to do with it.

This need never have been an issue if you had just stopped arguing!!!! Don't get me wrong, Stewards drive me nuts sometimes and I'm on the BOD but sometimes its better to bite your lip and use other avenues to get what you want. Honey v vinegar?

Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

...this need never have been an issue if you had just stopped arguing!!!!...

---

Phil,

Are you, as a member of the BOD, saying that his suspension had more to do with his arguing against it, than with the infraction itself? If so, I believe we have arrived at the crux of the issue.


Cheers,
Rennie

Ren
A number factors escalated this series of incidents.
I think some good suggestions have been made as a result and I know that Joel intends to pass on some of those he has received as well. I think thats all I really want to say on the subject
Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

Joel
Mike Smith, as Chief of Competitor Services, had nothing to do with the American Sedan tech situation at the 2009 Runoffs. His group's sole function was to receive, track and route paperwork. OK he was a steward and at Road America so he must be guilty. I was there too so I must have had something to do with it.

This need never have been an issue if you had just stopped arguing!!!! Don't get me wrong, Stewards drive me nuts sometimes and I'm on the BOD but sometimes its better to bite your lip and use other avenues to get what you want. Honey v vinegar?

Phil

---

Phil,
These comments are shocking. It is a club and you are stripping a member access because he was arguing his point? "Honey v Vinegar"? Ghastly comments.

If a competitor is being accused of something he feels he did not do, you cannot expect him to just bow down and take it. Based on what you say, if we just sit back and let the SCCA treat us like kids...then we will be ok.

Doesn't sound like the club has a clear vision in mind here.

I didn't read Phil's comments as shocking. More as pragmatic or common sense. We've all seen how situations can go either well or badly depending on how people interact.

None of us were there and saw everything, so it's foolish for any of us to know how to divide up the blame. It might be 100% one side's fault, but more likely both sides contributed some. How much? No one can know.

Please don't interpret this post as defending any official who's behaviour is not constructive for our sport.

Joe
The fact is that RA does not allow people on the race track when cold and their security is charged with enforcing it. Everything else follows`on from there. Same as Daytona and Homestead down here as examples. I know RA had vandalism issues at events this year.
Phil

Phil,
Did RA levy any civil penalties against Joel?

phil, i understand what you're saying, but from what i can see, walking the track at RA is not addressed anywhere that is reasonably accessible to entrants. also, from what i can see, in the worse case scenario the punishment far exceeds the crime. and we both know 99% of the time the truth lies somewhere in the middle. i can understand overkill initially, but common sense should prevail at some point.

Whether any civil penalties were proferred against anyone is moot. Phil's comments are emminently practical. Most of us have been around these situations for donkey's years and we all know that sometimes it is better to back away, especially when dealing with a tsarist system. Is it right? Maybe not. Is it wise to grab your lance and tilt at the windmill? Probably not. Nothing will ever be accomplished in the heat of the moment, except getting the monkey ready to fire.

All we are doing is thrashing the waters. Only one side of the issue has been publicized and I seriously doubt the other parties will resort to this forum to defend their actions. The appeals process was invoked and a change to the punishment (however Draconian is may have been) occurred. All we can hope for is that both the systemic and personal dynamics invloved are examined and any changes needed are forthcoming.

To try to extrapolate that the Club as a whole does not care about its members, especially without all the facts known, is self-destructive.

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]For the purpose of this section, an event begins when registration opens and ends when the driver, entrant, and all crew members from that team have left the track property at the conclusion of the event.[/FONT][/FONT]

Not fighting with anybody, but the way I read that is that everyone, including officials, drivers, workers, crew has to conduct them selves with the same honor and mutual respect after the last checker of the day as they would during the day.

so I guess that means that getting drunk and disorderly at the saturday nite party by anyone should result in disciplinary action.

I'll keep that in mind in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Demeter

[FONT=Univers][FONT=Univers]For the purpose of this section, an event begins when registration opens and ends when the driver, entrant, and all crew members from that team have left the track property at the conclusion of the event.[/FONT][/FONT]

Not fighting with anybody, but the way I read that is that everyone, including officials, drivers, workers, crew has to conduct them selves with the same honor and mutual respect after the last checker of the day as they would during the day.

---

That's the way I read it. From the time you register to the time you depart the track at the end of your weekend.

Quote:

---

so I guess that means that getting drunk and disorderly at the saturday nite party by anyone should result in disciplinary action.

---

Are you implying that the existence of an official regulation is the reason one should not be "drunk and disorderly" or conduct themselves with honor and mutual respect?

How about common decency and decorum?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Warner

That's the way I read it. From the time you register to the time you depart the track at the end of your weekend.


Are you implying that the existence of an official regulation is the reason one should not be "drunk and disorderly" or conduct themselves with honor and mutual respect?

How about common decency and decorum?

---

I think he's implying that if you can get your license suspended for arguing with a steward about whether or not you should have tried to walk the track when there is nothing preventing it in the Event Supps, it's just as reasonable to expect suspensions for drunks at the Sat. night party. Decency and decorum are in the eye of the beholder. ;)

I had agreed to let this drop at the request of those involved -
however, the track reverts to the track owners control except for the operational hours. It does not need to be in the supps if there are local track rules. Its their property - I hate to bring up other tracks but there are probably half of them we run on that won't let you out there after hours. What is so difficult to understand about that. Thats why we are where we are!!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt King

it's just as reasonable to expect suspensions for drunks at the Sat. night party.

---

I would say that is a true statement.

Quote:

---

Decency and decorum are in the eye of the beholder. ;)

---

I disagree. IMO that is one of the major problems of our society . . . the attitude that we are all able to define our own codes of social conduct without taking into consideration societal mores and conventions. More's the pity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

however, the track reverts to the track owners control except for the operational hours. It does not need to be in the supps if there are local track rules.

---

Why is it not listed in the Rules of Road America? This is a pretty extensive list of rules and regulations. You'd think if walking the track was such a gross violation they would put it in their official document that's distributed to competitors as part of the Event Supps.

http://junesprints.com/2010/roadamerica_rules.html

Quote:

---

1.0 ALL PERSONS ENTERING THE ROAD AMERICA RACE TRACK WILL HAVE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:

• 1.1 A current –VALID spectator ticket.
  
  • 1.1.1 A ticket with stub(s) upon entering.
  • 1.1.2 A ticket AND A VALID “Pass-Out” upon re-entering.
• 1.2 A VALID credential (accompanied by a signed insurance-waiver witnessed by Road America/Club Staff personnel (PARTICIPANTS ONLY) :
  
  • 1.2.1 Road America CREDENTIAL.
  • 1.2.2 Event sponsoring CLUB CREDENTIAL, PROPERLY VALIDATED.
  • 1.2.3 Appropriate weekend WRIST BAND.

2.0 UNLICENSED VEHICLE GUIDELINES:

• 2.1 RACE VEHICLES being used in the race event are allowed on R/A property
• 2.2 AUTHORIZED ROAD AMERICA VEHICLES with a current year sticker are allowed on R/A property
• 2.3 Participants may use unlicensed light vehicles and equipment carts but must have a current event sticker or yearly permit for use of such vehicles on Road America property.
  
  • 2.3.1 “Pit vehicle” registration and fees must be taken care of at registration (alternate locations may apply)
  • 2.3.2 A liability waiver and acknowledgement of proper insurance coverage for all “pit vehicles” must be signed when registering the “pit vehicles”.
  • 2.3.3 Furthermore, according to the Wisconsin State Law , all ATVs should be registered by the State of Wisconsin, or by another State, in order to be operated within the State
• 2.4 ROLLERBLADES, NON-MOTORIZED & MOTORIZED SKATE BOARDS, AND ROLLER SKATES are not permitted on Road America property.
• 2.5 BICYCLES are permitted but may not be used in the COMPETITION PADDOCK AREA – this is strictly PROHIBITED.

3.0 ALL OPERATORS OF ANY MOTOR VEHICLES (including golf carts) ON ROAD AMERICA PROPERTY MUST POSSESS A VALID STATE-ISSUED DRIVER’S LICENSE:

• 3.1 At no time is anyone allowed to park in fire lanes. Violators will be towed.

4.0 CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES IS PROHIBITED WITHIN THE COMPETITION PADDOCK UNTIL AFTER ALL RACE EVENTS HAVE CONCLUDED FOR THE DAY:

• 4.1 Spectators may only consume alcoholic beverages in the North Paddock, and other spectator areas.

5.0 RACE ENGINES MAY NOT BE RUN WITHOUT ROAD AMERICA PERMISSION:

• 5.1 Before 8:00 AM weekends/8:30 AM weekdays
• 5.2 After 6:00 PM weekends/5:00 PM weekdays
• 5.3 Car Clubs must vacate the property by 7:00 PM each day
• 5.4 On-Track Operations 8:00 – 6:00 Weekends, 8:30 – 5:00 Weekdays
• 5.5 When paddock space is in the Campground area, Campground quiet time of 10:00 pm applies. Generators can be used but must not disturb other teams or campers.

6.0 ALL VEHICLES OR TENTS REMAINING OVERNIGHT ON ROAD AMERICA PROPERTY MUST HAVE:

• 6.1 A valid Road America overnight camping permit PROPERLY DISPLAYED.
• 6.2 Overnight stays are not permitted without formal tent or motor home equipment.

7.0 NO PETS ARE ALLOWED ON THE ROAD AMERICA PROPERTY WITHOUT ROAD AMERICA PERMISSION. PETS ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY MUST EITHER BE:

• 7.1 Kept within the vehicle with adequate ventilation and fresh drinking water.
• 7.2 Kept under control of a leash.

8.0 FIRES, WHEN CONDITIONS PERMIT, MUST:

• 8.1 Be used for cooking only.
• 8.2 Be contained within a device designed for containing a fire.
• 8.3 Be completely extinguished before the coals, ashes, and remains are discarded.
• 8.4 Not be within 10 feet of spectator containment fence.
• 8.5 Not be within 100 feet of an occupied Road America concession stand.
• 8.6 Not be near other competitors’ gasoline storage areas.

9.0 AT NO TIME SHALL A VEHICLE BE PERMITTED TO TRAVEL COUNTER–CLOCKWISE ON TRACK!

10.0 DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY:

• 10.1 Please do not drive stakes or poles into any asphalt surfaces
• 10.2 Do not deface, cut, drive nails into or attach lines or any other objects to trees, bushes, light poles, site sign posts or buildings
• 10.3 Do not tamper with electrical facilities or any other facilities on Road America property. There are fines for any destruction of property.
• 10.4 RA is not responsible for damage caused by other’s actions.
• 10.5 Check voltage in electrical receptacles before using

11.0 ILLEGAL DRUGS, FIREWORKS, FIREARMS OR ANY TYPE OF EXPLOSIVE ARE NOT ALLOWED ON ROAD AMERICA PROPERTY!
12.0 VENDING is not allowed on Road America property without obtaining the proper permit. To obtain such permit, a vendor fee must be paid. This fee varies per event. Contact Road America for details and prices and to make arrangements. </B>
These premises are subject to video surveillance.
Revised 2/3/09

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

I had agreed to let this drop at the request of those involved -
however, the track reverts to the track owners control except for the operational hours. It does not need to be in the supps if there are local track rules. Its their property - I hate to bring up other tracks but there are probably half of them we run on that won't let you out there after hours. What is so difficult to understand about that. Thats why we are where we are!!!!

---

What bearing does that have on his suspension with the SCCA?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Warner

I disagree. IMO that is one of the major problems of our society . . . the attitude that we are all able to define our own codes of social conduct without taking into consideration societal mores and conventions. More's the pity.

---

Precisely. In this particular case, the Steward(s?) in question defined their own code of social conduct, and enforced it upon a competitor. Nee, "this need never have been an issue if you had just stopped arguing!!!!" per Phil Creighton, BOD. In other words, somebody decided that they didn't like the cut of his jib, and came down with punitive punishment that had no relevance to the infraction.


Cheers,
Rennie

Amen Rennie!

what was that movie/ book years ago where libel was alleged and the court found it to be true - and awarded the defendent a penny? The appeals court should have done the same! Violated rules - I guess - the harm - worthy of a penny!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton

Precisely. In this particular case, the Steward(s?) in question defined their own code of social conduct, and enforced it upon a competitor. Nee, "this need never have been an issue if you had just stopped arguing!!!!" per Phil Creighton, BOD. In other words, somebody decided that they didn't like the cut of his jib, and came down with punitive punishment that had no relevance to the infraction.

---

Rennie,

The gist of Phil's comments referenced above is that one should evaluate one's battles and decide when to dive in with all guns blazing (pardon the mixed metaphor) and when to strategically withdraw. In other words, pick your battles.

Injustices abound. There will always be someone with power in an argument of this nature. One of the hardest lessons in life is that we all must decide the appropriate avenue of addressing these injustices. Should we blaze away with little/no hope of a positive solution or should we evaluate our position and let discretion be the better part of valor. We have to ask ourselves . . . .what is the desired outcome? What are we willing to risk to make a point? Sometimes we just have to stand up for ourselves at the moment, regardless of consequences. (Believe me, I have more footprints on my tongue than most.) At other times we withdraw and formulate an alternate plan of attack.

You are correct that the stewards had the ability (if not moral imperative) to define the rules of engagement. The definitions of those rules may be appropriate or not. However, at that moment in time, they had the authority and ability of such definition and, as hard as it is to swalloow sometimes, that's the fact, Jack.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Charles Warner

The gist of Phil's comments referenced above is that one should evaluate one's battles and decide when to dive in with all guns blazing (pardon the mixed metaphor) and when to strategically withdraw. In other words, pick your battles.

Injustices abound. There will always be someone with power in an argument of this nature. One of the hardest lessons in life is that we all must decide the appropriate avenue of addressing these injustices. Should we blaze away with little/no hope of a positive solution or should we evaluate our position and let discretion be the better part of valor. We have to ask ourselves . . . .what is the desired outcome? What are we willing to risk to make a point? Sometimes we just have to stand up for ourselves at the moment, regardless of consequences. (Believe me, I have more footprints on my tongue than most.) At other times we withdraw and formulate an alternate plan of attack.

You are correct that the stewards had the ability (if not moral imperative) to define the rules of engagement. The definitions of those rules may be appropriate or not. However, at that moment in time, they had the authority and ability of such definition and, as hard as it is to swalloow sometimes, that's the fact, Jack.

---

Charles,

Don't misread me - I don't advocate provoking escalation in delicate situations such as this. I certainly grant that Joel may be guilty of exactly such a maneuver. However it's one thing to minimize contretemps in the middle of a situation, and entirely another to advocate a "lie back and enjoy it" approach as the rule to surviving encounters with SCCA stewards.

Saying that we should accept that as the status quo is just persisting the problem.


Cheers,
Rennie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

I had agreed to let this drop at the request of those involved -
however, the track reverts to the track owners control except for the operational hours. It does not need to be in the supps if there are local track rules. Its their property - I hate to bring up other tracks but there are probably half of them we run on that won't let you out there after hours. What is so difficult to understand about that. Thats why we are where we are!!!!

---

I think it could be reasonably expected that if walking the track carried a 6 month sentence and disqualification from the runoffs it does need to be in the supps.

Its funny. FA drivers have to compete regularly against a driver who crashes people out of races in almost every event he goes to and the SCCA won't do anything. But walking the track finds Joel out of the club. Sorry for the digression but there it is.

Warning - Soap Box Time -
I have often said that one of the problems that the SCCA suffers from is lack of leadership. Where are there leaders who can look at this (quickly) and say that this sentence is stupid? The current process is tedious and complicated. It seems to me that most reasonable people can look at this and say that Joel should not be out of the club. I also thought that most reasonable people wouldn't throw an FC driver out of the runoffs after he ran a whole season in a legal car. I still dream that just one official will take exception to drivers that think National races are demolition derbys. I was told at WGI that "it is not their job" to ensure the safety of competitors.

If I owned this sandbox, I would be concerned that decisions made, such as suspending track walkers, spread discontent and frustration and undo all of the good SCCA officials do. Most of whom I have met do great things for the club and its members. I have yet to see a 3 page discussion complimenting corner workers and officials when they normally deserve it.

All I know about this incident is what I have read on forums but I find it interesting that even though Joel was not the only driver to walk the track he was the only one suspended.
To use the drunk and disorderly comparison illustrated above, if I had a few too many on a Saturday night and fell down I would probably be treated different by the club that if I got drunk and started abusing the track manager.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rennie Clayton

Charles,

Don't misread me - I don't advocate provoking escalation in delicate situations such as this. I certainly grant that Joel may be guilty of exactly such a maneuver. However it's one thing to minimize contretemps in the middle of a situation, and entirely another to advocate a "lie back and enjoy it" approach as the rule to surviving encounters with SCCA stewards.

Saying that we should accept that as the status quo is just persisting the problem.

---

Rennie,

I agree completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

Depends how far you push the issue - you don't leave the CS much option
Phil

---

There should be no way possible to talk yourself from a jaywalking charge to something tantamount to capital murder.

Joel was bad.

Reprimand and move on!

That's the way I read it. From the time you register to the time you depart the track at the end of your weekend.


Are you implying that the existence of an official regulation is the reason one should not be "drunk and disorderly" or conduct themselves with honor and mutual respect?

How about common decency and decorum?[/quote]


Charlie, I am questioning why those that do not conduct themselves as gentlemen and get drunk and disorderly are to be punished. As all participants are subject to the GCR from the time of initial registration til they leave the track for the weekend.

This rule is not applied to everyone everywhere.Of course the prime reason to conduct ones self in a proper manner is a matter of respect of others.

But if someone can have their license suspended for activity clearly after the last checker of the day, then why is drunkeness and rude, ungentlemanly conduct apparently acceptable in other situations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

I had agreed to let this drop at the request of those involved -
however, the track reverts to the track owners control except for the operational hours. It does not need to be in the supps if there are local track rules. Its their property - I hate to bring up other tracks but there are probably half of them we run on that won't let you out there after hours. What is so difficult to understand about that. Thats why we are where we are!!!!

---

Is is so difficult for those tracks that don't want anyone on the track surface after competition hours to make that desire known to the competitors, either through well displayed and widely publicized track rules or by simple declaratory statements in the events Supps.

As competitors, we are not mind readers nor should we be expected to be about unpublished 'rules'. If it is a rule ...PUBLISH IT!.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phil Creighton

Joel
never have been an issue if you had just stopped arguing!!!!
Phil

---

Track restrictions should be communicated at least as effectively to drivers as they are to security personnel. This communication should not be after a violation occurs and the unaware violator and paying customer should not be in a position where he is being yelled at or otherwise chastised by track personnel for commission of an offense about which neither he nor any reasonable and responsible person in his position would be aware.

If Joel argued his point with more vigor than officials would have preferred perhaps they need to understand how his initial negative interaction with track representatives may have shaped his response. He obviously is a valued competitor as evidenced by the comments on this forum and should be a valued customer of RA and the SCCA. If the SCCA wants respect and calm debate in all its dealing with its members then it can start by refusing to tolerate a single incidence of unfairness and disrespect against any of its members and customers. Otherwise frustration with an unfair system that does not respect and afford due process to all its participants will have the same outcome here as it has thoughout history.

Folks,

We're in the SCCA.

If it doesn't say you can, you can't.

It doesn't say I can breathe, but I do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roland V. Johnson

It doesn't say I can breathe, but I do.

---

touche'

Careful Roland - you just haven't been protested on that yet!:D Is it breathing that everone has customarily done, and has been allowed in the past, and now you are excessively breathing????