God-like SCCA Stewart Position

[Dog Licked Racing]

5.11.4 Class Compliance Chief (CCC)
When assigned to an event by the head of Club Racing or his designate, the CCC works with the event technical staff to provide consistent compliance checking across all the events in designated class/es. Decisions made by the CCC regarding compliance are non-protestable.

MOTION: To approve the following new GCR section to provide the Class Compliance Chief position (initially for SM, but could be for SRF or any class in the future): Patullo/Lindstrand. PASSED: 8-5. Against Harris, Langlotz, Zekert, Hanushek, McCarthy.

What a terrible idea to create a god like position where the decision of one Stewart is final and non-protestable. This is SCCA (you know club racing) and all matters / rulings should be appealable via a formal review process. One person acting in real time, no matter how technically competent they may be creates a lot of concern.

[John Nesbitt]

5.11.4 Class Compliance Chief (CCC)
When assigned to an event by the head of Club Racing or his designate, the CCC works with the event technical staff to provide consistent compliance checking across all the events in designated class/es. Decisions made by the CCC regarding compliance are non-protestable.

MOTION: To approve the following new GCR section to provide the Class Compliance Chief position (initially for SM, but could be for SRF or any class in the future): Patullo/Lindstrand. PASSED: 8-5. Against Harris, Langlotz, Zekert, Hanushek, McCarthy.

What a terrible idea to create a god like position where the decision of one Stewart is final and non-protestable. This is SCCA (you know club racing) and all matters / rulings should be appealable via a formal review process. One person acting in real time, no matter how technically competent they may be creates a lot of concern.

The Class Compliance Chief is not a steward assignment. He/she is assigned by the National Office to bring some consistency to event compliance. I would expect this person to be a technical specialist in the class(es) under scrutiny.

The CCC is very similar in powers to a judge (e.g. a start judge). See the previous section about judges. Basically, they are judges of fact. Any action flowing from that technical judgment comes through the normal processes.

[Dog Licked Racing]

John,

I love the idea of increasing the efforts towards compliance and their by reducing unfair advantages and outright cheating, but

The BoD chose to make the CCC decisions totally non-protestable and not appealable to the Court of Appeals. The voted down an appealable version of this new situation.

In a "Club" (the oft forgotten second C in SCCA) no one should have Bill France like powers without the governance of an appeal process.

[Peter Olivola]

The compliant/non-compliant ruling by the CCC is not subject to appeal, but any penalty imposed by the stewards (and this will still require stewards involvement through the CSA/RFA/Protest process) remains subject to standard judicial steps.

If, for example, a DQ penalty is imposed by the Chief Steward as a result of the CCC ruling a car is non-compliant, the competitor still has the option to protest that penalty and receive an SOM hearing. The results of that hearing may be appealed to the CoA by all the usual parties.

John,

I love the idea of increasing the efforts towards compliance and their by reducing unfair advantages and outright cheating, but

The BoD chose to make the CCC decisions totally non-protestable and not appealable to the Court of Appeals. The voted down an appealable version of this new situation.

In a "Club" (the oft forgotten second C in SCCA) no one should have Bill France like powers without the governance of an appeal process.

[Dog Licked Racing]

Well that's good, insures the check and balances and due process of the system

[Dog Licked Racing]

John N,

BTW the next time we are at Summit Point at beer time, I'll tell you the story of the season my old team decided to make a point by cheating to the extreme, and still no one called us on it despite all our efforts to get caught.

Frank

[RussMcB]

John N,

BTW the next time we are at Summit Point at beer time, I'll tell you the story of the season my old team decided to make a point by cheating to the extreme, and still no one called us on it despite all our efforts to get caught.

Frank

Tell us all! :-)

[John Nesbitt]

Well that's good, insures the check and balances and due process of the system

This certainly represents a change. I hesitate to reverse-engineer the BOD's thinking. So I won't. However, these things don't happen in a vacuum. The Club's experience with compliance over the past while must have a played a role.

I expect that we shall see Class Compliance Chiefs at some number of 2015 Majors events, focusing on SM, at least to begin.

I see two sides to the CCC coin.

On the one hand, if event Tech finds a non-compliance and the Chief Steward takes action, the affected party can protest/appeal, claiming that the underlying measurement/interpretation was faulty.

If a CCC makes a determination and the Chief Steward takes action, the affected party can still protest/appeal. However, he cannot protest/appeal the underlying measurement/interpretation by the CCC, only the action that the Chief Steward and/or SOM took based on that ruling.

So, the CCC definitely reduces the scope for a protest/appeal.

On the other hand, the purpose of the CCC role is to bring some consistency and expertise to compliance issues. Club Racing will surely appoint CCCs with deep knowledge of the class(es) under scrutiny.

How each of us weighs and values each side is an individual call.

[stonebridge20]

[QUOTE]

Club Racing will surely appoint CCCs with deep knowledge of the class(es) under scrutiny.

And with no conflict of interest issues?

[John Nesbitt]

[QUOTE=stonebridge20;458471]

And with no conflict of interest issues?

What a kidder!

Seriously, though, I have no inside information. But the Majors season starts in just one week, so you should have an answer fairly soon.

[Steve Demeter]

The protest of the Chief Steward's decision means nothing , IMHO.

The fact that the CCC decision is not protestable means everything.

If they say you are non compliant and you protest a Chief Steward decision to DQ you, how far does anyone think they will get protesting the DQ penalty for running an illegal (non politically correct for non compliant) car.

While I totally agree with the need for consistent rules enforcement, this seems like a not very good way to go about it. Witness the BOD vote of 8 to 5.

And as far as start judges go don't get me started on that. Line of sight , trying to judge starts in real time, trying to watch an entire field at once and keep another eye on the green flag. How can a person watch the starter and a field of cars at the same time from a poor location and make any reasonable judgement just never seemed possible to me, except in the case of a really grossly jumped start. But the fine line between jumped and not jumped is another whole area.

[TimH]

BTW the next time we are at Summit Point at beer time, I'll tell you the story of the season my old team decided to make a point by cheating to the extreme, and still no one called us on it despite all our efforts to get caught.

I did that teaching my kids to play poker (if you can't trust your own father..). I got a little discouraged at how blatant I finally had to get, but the lesson proved useful later in their lives.

[Hardingfv32]

A classic example of a 9/11 type response to the perceived embarrassment from the Laguna DQ's. A bureaucracy formulating a un-necessary response so that it can look like it is being productive while the difficult challenges go un-answered. The bureaucracy keeps growing. This change is costing the membership something if they were honest enough to admit it.

The CCC does not bring 'consistency and expertise to compliance issues' unless they are at every event. Where do the competitors get their expertise of compliance issues? Are the CCC's going to be clarifying the rules and issuing opinions on their interpretation of the rules…. or are they going to keep everything a SCCA type administrative secret?

Unless the SM CCC was an active competitor how could he have had an awareness of the SM head issue unless he is personally doing, hands on, tear downs during the season. This SM head issue was very subtle and it would have taken a lot of engine tear downs to pickup on what was being done. Remember, the engine is not the only thing he needs to be on top of. In all likelihood, nothing would have been different at Laguna if a SM CCC had been in place during the 2014 season. One guy is not going to cut it.

This is simply another lame idea that brings no benefit to the majority of the SCCA membership.

Brian

[Purple Frog]

This move appears to me as taking a page out of the book that two very successful pro formula series have used the last 9 years. (F2kCS F1600CS) In those series the tech director makes a decision of non-compliance and the hands the decision to the chief steward to decide the punishment. There is no more discussion about the compliance. Works that way in NASCAR, IMSA, United Sports Car, etc. The advantages are that it is quick and decisive.

It is basically impossible to be a national scrutineer and have to rule on every class in the GCR. It is really hard to just be able to rule on just formula cars.

It is far easier to specialize in or one or maybe two classes. Thus with the CCC plan the scutineering should be much better.

Many of the "mini-pro series" that run their events within an SCCA weekend implement the same CCC concept. The V-8 Stockcar Series comes to mind as an example. Their cars will run within a SCCA weekend run group, but they will provide their own CCC.

The downside may be an added cost. Many times you will see a $10 extra fee added to the entry of a class requiring special scrutineering. I fear $10 doesn't really cover the actual cost.

Where I have seen this done in the past the competitors seem to appreciate the effort. Not only is the tech usually more precise, but they have a known "go to" person to get rapid rulings during the weekend. The serious competitors I have known actually like to see a more thorough tech environment.

It could be a "win - win" for any class that gets a CCC.

[Matt King]

What Frog describes makes sense, but is this person supposed to attend every Majors race? If not, it won't accomplish much, because the whole point of consistent tech inspection is to have the same people doing it at every event.

[reidhazelton]

Right now, as it is written it seems to indicate that it is for SM, BUT it COULD be for all classes in the future. It also says "when assigned", not that a person WILL BE assigned, ALWAYS. This seems to be just a placeholder for the authority to head off another SM-Like Runoffs debacle if the CRB gets wind of something. They can make instant compliance rulings/decisions.

I don't see much issue with the idea here, except in the vagueness of the whole thing. That could get ugly in the future.

[Art Smith]

the concept of a Class Compliance Chief (CCC) is a great deal worse than a BAD IDEA. what happened to the idea of "getting it right" or is "face" in-the-moment now more important given invested corporate expectations (versus membership expectations)..............? what happens when a CCC is shown conclusively to have been factually wrong? how does the "club" intend to restore the member's good name with their family, friends, supporters, and sponsors? responsibility for verification of compliance with the rules as written isn't a delegatable task!! dropping the only means members had to get a binding written opinion on compliance with the rules as written was a serious mistake along the same line...............

Art
artesmith@earthlink.net

[Hardingfv32]

There is no more discussion about the compliance. Works that way in NASCAR, IMSA, United Sports Car, etc. The advantages are that it is quick and decisive.

We do not have spectators needing to know who won the race soon after the event ends. We do not even have competitors that give compliance a high priority. Our present compliance system works just fine as witnessed at Laguna. Discussion is part of a club's political process.

The membership is just incurring costs for a service they have not asked for. Compliance cost are better allocated to those interested in compliance with the present system. Competitor cans spend their own time and money to file protests that satisfy their individual needs.

Brian

[Peter Olivola]

Brian,

I think you need to step back from this and consider the high probability you don't know as much about the Spec Miata situation as you think you know about FV. That community is, in fact, clamoring for better compliance checking so the club is, in fact, responding to the membership with this program.

We do not have spectators needing to know who won the race soon after the event ends. We do not even have competitors that give compliance a high priority. Our present compliance system works just fine as witnessed at Laguna. Discussion is part of a club's political process.

The membership is just incurring costs for a service they have not asked for. Compliance cost are better allocated to those interested in compliance with the present system. Competitor cans spend their own time and money to file protests that satisfy their individual needs.

Brian

[BeerBudgetRacing]

That community is, in fact, clamoring for better compliance checking so the club is, in fact, responding to the membership with this program.

Basically we're saying they can't be honest enough to police themselves.

I thought the system worked. No one got away with anything.
The biggest problem was the $12k the main protestor had to put up.

The fallout: Those 2 or 3 engine builders that are on the SM committee (and write the rules but decided they were vague) have probably lost a bunch of customers. There own damn fault.

Situation corrected.

If the CCC can cause this inspection without having people put up $$, then maybe its a good thing. I think the SM engine builders were not expecting anyone to pony up the money. Not expecting to get caught. They all paid the price.

[racerdad2]

I'm building an SM this winter. Hopefully, no one looks under the hood & notices the Chevy small block. All kidding aside, SM had gotten out of hand. Time for uniform rule enforcement or split the class into two categories. Original club intent & National level $75 - 100k whizzy bits.

[racerdad2]

Of course, the 2016 Global Cup car will usher in a new era of MX-5 racing 2 litre. One supplier for all entries. Will be interesting to see who all climbs on board. I hope they sell hundreds.

[Hardingfv32]

I think you need to step back from this and consider the high probability you don't know as much about the Spec Miata situation as you think you know about FV. That community is, in fact, clamoring for better compliance checking so the club is, in fact, responding to the membership with this program.

1) You have no idea what I know about FV, BS comment.

2) We are talking about a universal application of the CCC. It might only hit SM, but it is going to be funded by all the competitors.

3) No threads on general compliance issues on Apex Speed or even the SM forum that I can detect. Does SCCA have some communications with the membership that it can reveal the importance to this issue? From what is available to me I do not see the requirement to respond to the Laguna event.

4) It would be highly unlikely that anyone in the lower half of the Laguna SM field would have concerns with compliance. That should be the least of their concerns. So, that leaves maybe 30 or so SM competitors that might have concerns. We have now established a CCC system that is funded by all competitors, that satisfies maybe a population of about 30 competitors. A very poorly designed program.

Brian

[mmi16]

We do not have spectators needing to know who won the race soon after the event ends. We do not even have competitors that give compliance a high priority. Our present compliance system works just fine as witnessed at Laguna. Discussion is part of a club's political process.

The membership is just incurring costs for a service they have not asked for. Compliance cost are better allocated to those interested in compliance with the present system. Competitor cans spend their own time and money to file protests that satisfy their individual needs.

Brian

As a SCCA member I was ashamed by all the DQ's from podium positions in multiple classes. Whether the cause was actual cheating on incompetent tech inspection, I have no idea and I do not personally care as I was not involved. A big black mark for SCCA. Not SCCA's finest hours.

[Jnovak]

Personally I do understand the issue wrt the costs associated with a professional super tech person or persons. However You have to remember the about 99% of all club workers are volunteers who spend their time so that some of us can race. It seems to me that our volunteer staff is WAY overworked as it is.

I think that this is perhaps a start of the club having a few professional tech people or staff and that is a good idea. This may be part of the big picture of changing the structure of the Majors program and we have to start somewhere IMO.

[R. Pare]

A couple decades ago in FF, the manufacturers and most, if not all, of the competitors at the Runoffs agreed to and hired Frank Schultheis to act as their tech chief for many years ( he also, IIRC, was head of tech for the F2000 Pro series for many years). Basically, Franks word was law, period. Everyone ( except, of course, those who Frank caught doing something a bit too close or over the edge) appreciated having someone who was an actual recognised expert in the rules and construction for those classes.

The only ones who didn't like it were the Stewards, since they thought he was encroaching on their private fiefdoms.

The competitors of that time can better tell you about how well it worked than I can.

[racerdad2]

I agree with Jay. The volunteers are what make the club function. Without them, entry fees would be far higher. Heartfelt thanks to all who volunteer !

[DanW]

A couple decades ago in FF, the manufacturers and most, if not all, of the competitors at the Runoffs agreed to and hired Frank Schultheis to act as their tech chief for many years ( he also, IIRC, was head of tech for the F2000 Pro series for many years). Basically, Franks word was law, period. Everyone ( except, of course, those who Frank caught doing something a bit too close or over the edge) appreciated having someone who was an actual recognised expert in the rules and construction for those classes.

The only ones who didn't like it were the Stewards, since they thought he was encroaching on their private fiefdoms.

The competitors of that time can better tell you about how well it worked than I can.

Frank's contribution to Formula Ford and FF2000 was enormous. He guided the volunteer Scrutineer to become conversant in the technology of the time. He had an ability to put the information to paper (The FF Scrutineer's Handbook) in an understandable form, complete with tables and photos and graphics.

All us FF competitors and scrutineers are in his debt.

[Peter Olivola]

1. I've seen your posts. It's very clear what you think you know about FV and the FV community.

2. You're talking about a universal application. The GCR talks about as needed basis.

3. This demonstrates you don't don't much about SM. The comments run throughout most threads about the Runoffs and anything that has to do with parity.

4. It is, in fact, those not at the pointy end of the grid who are most concerned about compliance, demonstrating, again, that your concerns are wholly your own and not the competitor community affected.

1) You have no idea what I know about FV, BS comment.

2) We are talking about a universal application of the CCC. It might only hit SM, but it is going to be funded by all the competitors.

3) No threads on general compliance issues on Apex Speed or even the SM forum that I can detect. Does SCCA have some communications with the membership that it can reveal the importance to this issue? From what is available to me I do not see the requirement to respond to the Laguna event.

4) It would be highly unlikely that anyone in the lower half of the Laguna SM field would have concerns with compliance. That should be the least of their concerns. So, that leaves maybe 30 or so SM competitors that might have concerns. We have now established a CCC system that is funded by all competitors, that satisfies maybe a population of about 30 competitors. A very poorly designed program.

Brian

[Peter Olivola]

Speaking for myself only and with no knowledge of the stewards attitudes from the era you describe, I welcome consistent observations, measurements and recommendations that give me the confidence to make sound compliance decisions.

It is also my experience that we stewards are, for the most part, not qualified to make decisions without solid tech input.

Since the issues surrounding compliance break down into two distinct parts, determining compliance/non-compliance and application of penalties, and having had experience with pro series, I already know the CCC, where utilized, will be an improvement in processing technical issues.

I welcome the opportunity to reduce the time it takes to resolve compliance questions that will result in less delay for competitors, crews and the officials who must wait for a decision to complete their day/weekend.

The only ones who didn't like it were the Stewards, since they thought he was encroaching on their private fiefdoms.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

4. It is, in fact, those not at the pointy end of the grid who are most concerned about compliance, demonstrating, again, that your concerns are wholly your own and not the competitor community affected.

4) It would be highly unlikely that anyone in the lower half of the Laguna SM field would have concerns with compliance. That should be the least of their concerns.

So let me translate your posts so you might stop the piss'n match....

Peter says the people at the back are concern about compliance. Their concern is that those in the front are NOT compliant - not about their own cars.

Brian says the people in the back are not concerned about compliance because their cars are compliant and the CCC will not be inspecting them and any inspection would yield a compliant car.

Basically you are both saying the same thing - incompletely...... so lets combine them:

The back is not concerned about getting inspected because they run compliant cars. They aren't even on the edge - probably can afford it. They are however concerned that the front of the pack is getting away with something but are totally helple$$ to challenge the leaders compliance.

Peter suggests we all pay and we all benefit: I agree.
Brian asks Why do we all need to pay just because cheaters decide to cheat. I also agree....

The SM thing was an embarrassment to the club. This is their way to threaten people into compliance. If only people could play by the rules we would be in the situation.

[Hardingfv32]

1. I've seen your posts. It's very clear what you think you know about FV and the FV community.

2. You're talking about a universal application. The GCR talks about as needed basis.

3. This demonstrates you don't don't much about SM. The comments run throughout most threads about the Runoffs and anything that has to do with parity.

4. It is, in fact, those not at the pointy end of the grid who are most concerned about compliance, demonstrating, again, that your concerns are wholly your own and not the competitor community affected.

I thought your were challenging my car knowledge. Feel free to say what you wish about my FV community knowledge.

You are not providing any logic to support your claims.

Comments about the Runoffs are not the same as a focused thread on compliance…. of which there are none that I have seen, here or SM. You have introduced the subject of parity which is not the issue being discussed.

I think the structure of the SM Laguna protest demonstrates where the interest or concern about compliance is. Would it not be logical to think that the most competitive and better funded competitors are going to have the greatest interest in compliance?

Brian

[Hardingfv32]

New thoughts….

1) What evidence is there that compliance is inconsistent? For that matter, how will we know if the CCC is being consistent when the only limited information we have about a protest is through the appeals process…. and the CCC program conveniently does away with appeals. From my experience it is standard procedure for tech to withhold all protest information. Our knowledge of the SM protests comes from the competitors involved.

2) Could the CCC program just be a convenient way for SCCA to take control over a perceived negative PR situation? The Laguna SM protest could easily have been resolve in a different manner by a CCC. Problem solved for SCCA.

3) Could the CCC program just be a way to allocate the additional cost of greater SM compliance scrutiny across all competitors? Maybe it was assumed that SM competitors were not going to accept more compliance fees when what they have been paying does not seem to provide an effective service.

Brian

[Peter Olivola]

And true to form, you revert to fear, uncertainty and doubt as a way to obfuscate the situation.

Brilliant.

[jim morgan]

Frog,

Entered both majors in Florida, as usual I will be cheating. I'll test the system and let you know.

[Daryl DeArman]

1) What evidence is there that compliance is inconsistent? For that matter, how will we know if the CCC is being consistent when the only limited information we have about a protest is through the appeals process…. and the CCC program conveniently does away with appeals. From my experience it is standard procedure for tech to withhold all protest information. Our knowledge of the SM protests comes from the competitors involved.

2) Could the CCC program just be a convenient way for SCCA to take control over a perceived negative PR situation? The Laguna SM protest could easily have been resolve in a different manner by a CCC. Problem solved for SCCA.

3) Could the CCC program just be a way to allocate the additional cost of greater SM compliance scrutiny across all competitors? Maybe it was assumed that SM competitors were not going to accept more compliance fees when what they have been paying does not seem to provide an effective service.

Brian

1) NONE.
2) Certainly.
3) Absolutely could be.


The solution was already there. DQ's at the biggest event sends a strong message to the competitors.

The problem was that the SCCA environment let it go too far without doing anything, and then they got embarrassed.

The issue then becomes what do we do about it going forward?

If DQ's happen enough during the season as well as at these premier events the cheating will slow considerably and rules will become more concise.

The issue I see is how do you get somebody involved with enough intimate knowledge of the class without that somebody having the appearance of bias, or conflict of interest?

[budawe]

As anyone can tell from reading Fastrack and tracking the votes, there was not a clear consensus about this issue. Some of the details still need to be worked out and the BOD is still discussing this program.

Let me touch on what this position is about. First, it's a technical advisory position to aid the local scrutineers. Secondly, this position has no authority in the management of events or handing out punishment for technical transgressions. That belongs to the stewards. Lastly, this position applies to Majors events and will not effect regional races.

It would be naive to think the SM debacle had nothing to do with this, but it does. The concerns about our rule processes and enforcement go back as long as I have been on the BOD and further.

As any of us, who have been racing for a while, will admit that the technical skills needed today are far different and more complicated than existed even a decade ago. Folks like Frank Schultheis just aren't that plentiful. While it's easy to consider this a volunteer issue, Ive begun to understand that many of today's competitors don't know much about their cars or the cars they rent. Frankly, most arrive and drive competitors would rather not have to deal with those pesky details.

Many classes have done a good job of self policing and that's likely to continue. But what about the classes where folks don't have the interest or knowledge, to call out transgressions?

As a driver and scrutineer, I have always felt that it was the competitors responsibility to challenge and protest perceived transgressions. I don't like competitors asking us to inspect and dq a car for them because we end up accused of being on a witch hunt.

Where does that leave the club? There's no easy answer, but this position has the possibility to bridge the technical gap that exists in the field. I see this position possibly being elective by class for those who desire the extra inspections. I also see this position funded by compliance fees for those classes that have elected to have it and not by the entire membership.

We have an obligation to the members and competitors to provide safe and fair events. Maintaining fairness means having full access to inspect vehicles and make decisions. This position has the potential to facilitate that fairness without putting us all through costly detailed inspections every weekend.

[stonebridge20]

1)

The issue I see is how do you get somebody involved with enough intimate knowledge of the class without that somebody having the appearance of bias, or conflict of interest?

Shouldn't be a problem to find.

Wana come over for unicorn burgers later?

[Rick Kirchner]

we tend to underestimate the influence of poorly written rules on these problems....

[Marty Nygard]

The interesting thing about this new position is the actual GCR language
[SIZE=1] 5.11.3. Class Compliance Chief (CCC)
When assigned to an event by the head of Club Racing or his designate, the CCC works with the event technical staff to provide consistent compliance checking across all the events in designated class/es. Decisions made by the CCC regarding compliance are non-protestable.
[/SIZE] Does not include the Motion language "(initially for SM, but could be for SRF or any class in the future)". This CCC person could show up at your next event and decide to check any or all classes, presumably at his discretion.
M