How Important is Your Board of Director Vote in October?

[Peter Zekert]

Each October, up to 4 of the 13 SCCA Directors are up for election or re-election. Most of us don't consider this as a weighty decision, but from my first hand experience, it should be the most important SCCA decision you make.

Let me tell you a story ...

In 2007 I ran for the Board of Directors. I lost in a three person race to Lisa Noble of Manhattan, KS. Lisa got about 400+ votes while myself and Chuck Clark each got about 250-300 votes. I knew Lisa was the wrong person for the job because she is 90% ego driven. Lisa went on to eventually chair the Board of Directors; lead a vote to remove the then current SCCA President (2013); temporarily assumed the SCCA President's position (2013); and then, without even having the minimum job skill requirement, she, with the help of Bill Kephart and Mike Lewis (both on the Board) managed to talk a majority of the Board to elect Lisa SCCA President!! [even though I loudly reminded everything that 1) she's not qualified and 2) she should be recused] .....

If 100 of those people who voted for Lisa in 2007 had voted another way, she would not have been able to do the damage that she did. Think about that when you vote.

SAME for the voters who elected Mike Lewis and Bill Kephart. As the three of them (Noble/Kephart/Lewis) built the Majors program, both Kephart's Division (Rocky Mountain) and Noble's Divisions (Midwest) lost about 40-50% of their licensed Club Race driver. The Majors first excluded all of the Improved Touring cars, which amounted to 15-20% of our weekend race entries in the middle of the country. Think about that..

WHAT should a candidate for SCCA's Board of Directors look like? First off, I do not care if they are SOLO, Race, Road Rally, RallyX, PDX or whatever. I want them first and foremost to understand and live customer service. "More Service, Less Ego". Second I want someone with strong business experience, someone who understands what the customer wants and can understand what is a good place to spend money and what is not. Third, they need to be patient. Being on the Board is an exercise in patience, because you are going to have the blowhards like Lewis, Kephart, and you'll have the completely clueless. Fourth, you need to have someone on the board with legal, ethical and practical experience. And lastly, you have to have people on the Board willing to make tough decisions and not worried about what their friends on the Board will think. This ain't high school.

Let me tell you a second story about the 2014 Board of Directors....

I ran and won in 2013 to replace Lisa Noble (then termed out). I immediately called her and told her she could not run for SCCA President (because she had voted and actually lead the vote to oust the past SCCA President Jeff Dahnert a month before). She agreed that it would be unethical to remove and officer and then to take his paid position. [Unethical, but it happened.]

So after Lisa Noble, with the help of Bill Kephart and Mike Lewis, convinced the others on the Board to elect her President, the discussion of contract had to be brought up. ($$) Kephart wanted a multi-year contract to "give her enough time to grow into the position." I snapped back saying it should be "month to month". The Board decided on a 1-year contract, but ...... left the contract up to the treasurer. At the next Board meeting we were asked to ratify a contract. I WANTED TO SEE THE CONTRACT FIRST. John Walsh, the Chairman of the Board said "NO". So the 2014 Board voted on a contract for an unqualified President that none of them (except for the Treasurer) saw. AND no one but me saw this was wrong?? Or had the balls to bring it up??

So think about that, 13 people voting on a contract. I voted "no" because I could not see the terms. But about 8 people voted in favor of Lisa Noble's President's contract based on reassurances from the Treasurer that is was "OK". A few years later I got to see what the contract was....... It was not pretty for SCCA members.

Idiots, sheep, and ego driven people make these kinds of decisions, decisions that ultimately spend your membership dollars. Be VERY CAREFUL and do your homework before you vote for the next Director. By my count, the Lisa Noble debacle cost the club about $1M.

Peter

[problemchild]

Peter,

Interesting commentary! Very refreshing to see terms like "customer" and "service" used in the SCCA context.

Unfortunately, you have not provided advice on how to select and support people who will not just settle in to a nice comfortable seat in the old boy's clubhouse.

Perhaps, you, and like-minded SCCA people, could find a way to provide some ongoing transparency to the process, which often appears to be the last truly confidential BOD in America. Newsletters, blogs, or just updates to sites such as this forum would help.

I believe the SCCA process needs major reform, but like any failing system, the first step to rebuilding, is getting the right people in the right positions.

Thanks!

[mmi16]

Every person running for an office - SCCA or any other elective office - has an agenda.

They have the agenda they voice in their election spiel. The also have an agenda that only they know about.

The elector's JOB is to discover that hidden agenda and vote accordingly. Don't get baffled by the bull feces.

[stonebridge20]

Drain the swamp !

[Thomas Copeland]

Here's the problem: Choice

2017 Election for 2018 BOD:

Area 3: Encompasses part of the Southeast Division, including the Florida, Gulf Coast, Wiregrass, Central Florida and Dixie Regions. Incumbent Area 3 Director Lee Hill is running unopposed.

Area 4: Encompasses the Great Lakes Division and each Region contained within it. In alphabetical order, Area 4 candidates are (click to review candidate-supplied platforms):
- Patrick McCammon
- Marcus Merideth

Area 9: Encompasses part of the Northern Pacific Division, including San Francisco and Reno Regions.
- Incumbent Area 9 Director Charlie Davis is running unopposed

Area 11: Encompasses the Southern Pacific Division, including Arizona, Cal Club, Hawaii, San Diego, Las Vegas and Arizona Border Regions (click to review candidate-supplied platform).
- Jason Isleyis running unopposed


Hard to get good representation when nobody wants to run.

EDIT: This was last years election.

This year? I can't even find who's running...when does it come out?

[problemchild]

The truly sad, and most telling point about Peter's post, is that no one gives a damn!

This is the 5th reply on this thread. A stupid thread about taking a chainsaw to a poorly parked Lada has 8 replies.

Who has not heard dozens of people, not in the know, make these exact claims about BOD members? Validation? No one cares. No one can even get upset enough to defend BOD members. Not even cheerleaders telling us to write a letter or volunteer for a committee. This thread should be 10 pages long. It may be the most important thread on this forum. But nothing.

Complete apathy! Everybody knows it is broken but could care less. Great club! Great future! Not!

[Farrout48]

In SEDIV, Areas 3 and 12, there are two large Regions (Atlanta and CFR) that can effectively sway the voting for BOD members if they just concentrate in getting their Regions to actually vote. The number of SCCA members actually voting for BOD members is a low percentage. It is all about how you strategize your campaign.

[FVRacer21]

The truly sad, and most telling point about Peter's post, is that no one gives a damn!

This is the 5th reply on this thread. A stupid thread about taking a chainsaw to a poorly parked Lada has 8 replies.

Who has not heard dozens of people, not in the know, make these exact claims about BOD members? Validation? No one cares. No one can even get upset enough to defend BOD members. Not even cheerleaders telling us to write a letter or volunteer for a committee. This thread should be 10 pages long. It may be the most important thread on this forum. But nothing.

Complete apathy! Everybody knows it is broken but could care less. Great club! Great future! Not!

Pete makes some claims, some of which we are hearing fro the first time. Being an SCCA member for over 40 years, I have heard similar (and worse). What seems to be it's strength - a member driven club - is also its weakness - a member driven club where most of the members don't want to participate (in the running of the club) .

Look who is achieving the most success - Bob Wight's group (outside the SCCA) and groups like NEFV, Challenge Cup, etc; who have carved their own place inside the SCCA. If we could get that amount of enthusiasm in every member - maybe we would not have this discussion.

Volunteer positions are not fun - a lot of grief and aggravation, long hours and personal cost.

Pete is right- we get who we vote for, and Greg is right, how do we know who we are voting for? Most of the time we vote for a name without ever meeting the person, just from reading a 100 word summary.

So this year, if there is a contest in your area - pick up the phone or write and e-mail and get to know the person who is representing you.

PS - And tell them we want the bylaws changes so the members have more control of the Club - then at least we can blame ourselves if we don't like something.

ChrisZ

[John Nesbitt]

...



PS - And tell them we want the bylaws changes so the members have more control of the Club - then at least we can blame ourselves if we don't like something.

ChrisZ

In fact, we do, it's called an election.

This is how virtually every private voluntary organization (PVO) governs itself - by electing representatives to manage the organization's affairs. I am unaware of any PVO of any size that governs itself by direct democracy; it is simply infeasible.

As you point out, members should query candidates on their positions on the issues, and vote accordingly. The problem arises when (as so often happens, and particularly when there is an incumbent) there is only one candidate. If nobody cares enough to run, or if Fred/Charlie/Ted runs because it's 'his turn', then you get more of the same.

I shall let Peter (the OP) speak for himself. However, I have talked with him, and I believe that much of his frustration came from being the only one on a 13-person Board who held certain positions. I can well understand that this became an exercise in frustration.

It is really, really difficult to make a sea change in an elected Board. There are 13 members, elected on a 3-year cycle. In order to make a radical change, you would need to get a base of support beyond one or two Areas. You would then need to advance candidates across multiple Areas in at least two election cycles.

And, of course, then you would need to get them elected.

[Jnovak]

In fact, we do, it's called an election.

This is how virtually every private voluntary organization (PVO) governs itself - by electing representatives to manage the organization's affairs. I am unaware of any PVO of any size that governs itself by direct democracy; it is simply infeasible.

As you point out, members should query candidates on their positions on the issues, and vote accordingly. The problem arises when (as so often happens, and particularly when there is an incumbent) there is only one candidate. If nobody cares enough to run, or if Fred/Charlie/Ted runs because it's 'his turn', then you get more of the same.

I shall let Peter (the OP) speak for himself. However, I have talked with him, and I believe that much of his frustration came from being the only one on a 13-person Board who held certain positions. I can well understand that this became an exercise in frustration.

It is really, really difficult to make a sea change in an elected Board. There are 13 members, elected on a 3-year cycle. In order to make a radical change, you would need to get a base of support beyond one or two Areas. You would then need to advance candidates across multiple Areas in at least two election cycles.

And, of course, then you would need to get them elected.

thanks for the reality check John. Is there anything else members can do OTHER than voting for the BOD?

[Peter Zekert]

..... It is really, really difficult to make a sea change in an elected Board. ......

Ironically out of the horrible years the 2015 Board hired a non profit board consultant who told the Board much of what I was saying (that all 13 should govern and that all needed to see contracts, etc...), and the 2016 Board became a reasonable entity.

My biggest fear is that, through election cycles, the SCCA Board will revert to what it once was. That my friends is your job, to insure that each new Board member is qualified or is willing to become qualified to serve on a board.

Peter Zekert

[mmi16]

Pete makes some claims, some of which we are hearing fro the first time. Being an SCCA member for over 40 years, I have heard similar (and worse). What seems to be it's strength - a member driven club - is also its weakness - a member driven club where most of the members don't want to participate (in the running of the club) .

Look who is achieving the most success - Bob Wight's group (outside the SCCA) and groups like NEFV, Challenge Cup, etc; who have carved their own place inside the SCCA. If we could get that amount of enthusiasm in every member - maybe we would not have this discussion.

Volunteer positions are not fun - a lot of grief and aggravation, long hours and personal cost.

Pete is right- we get who we vote for, and Greg is right, how do we know who we are voting for? Most of the time we vote for a name without ever meeting the person, just from reading a 100 word summary.

So this year, if there is a contest in your area - pick up the phone or write and e-mail and get to know the person who is representing you.

PS - And tell them we want the bylaws changes so the members have more control of the Club - then at least we can blame ourselves if we don't like something.

ChrisZ

SCCA and its BOD elections mirror the problems with our Congressional elections. We can only vote for the people form 'our' area. We KNOW the other area directors are fools and tools, and 'our' director is what we want.

Congressionaly we vote for one Representative every 2 years and for a Senator when their staggered 6 year terms come due. We KNOW that all those we can't vote for are idiots, but our guy is the knight on the white horse.

[Peter Zekert]

....... We can only vote for the people form 'our' area. We KNOW the other area directors are fools and tools, and 'our' director is what we want.

If I EVER saw certain horrible candidates run again for BoD [in an area outside my own] I would immediately contact other candidates in that area and [if they are not "fools or tools"] pledge $50; $100; $200 for their post card platform fund.

[reidhazelton]

Man, sure sounds like a sweet gig! Unpaid, significant hours per month, travel expense, and if you win the seat you get to hear everyone tell you how stupid you are! Since joining the FSRAC, I've been called corrupt, motivated by self-interest, and stupid. I didn't know there was a position where you could get even more of those "benefits". Sign me up for some of that!

Maybe more people don't run because they don't want to get treated like crap and beat their head against the wall. Just a thought.

If you want change, speaking with your rep (SCCA or political) like a sane human being has a lot more clout than ad hominem attacks and yelling. If you don't like how something is done, there are ample opportunity where you can affect change within SCCA. And if you don't want to jump all in, speaking with your rep rationally goes a long way.

"UNLESS someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." ~The Lorax (Dr. Suess knows his stuff)

[Thomas Copeland]

I've never had a beef with the BOD until now.

But you just don't back date rules. You don't. Ever! Period. i don't care what good you think you are doing, It's shady and it's patently dishonest. And when you do then you deserve to get the full wrath of everything you just sowed.

I don't have any intention of apologizing for anything I've written about the BOD since they implemented this New Runoffs Criteria. If anything I think I've shown remarkable restraint.

Being a member of the BOD of the SCCA could be the most thankless job in Motorsport. According to the SCCA I think you need to be member for 2 consecutive years before you can run for BOD. This is only my second year back. Otherwise I'd do it and I guarantee you if I won I'd be the loose cannon on deck that finally rights this swamped ship back upright.

I had to search like hell to find this and finally found it on the Washington DC Region site. Because why in the world would the SCCA main office have it on theirs? Beats the heck outta me!! But here's the criteria if you want to run for the BOD:



The qualifications worthy of note to be a nominee by the committee are:
a. The candidate must be a Member in good standing.
b. The candidate must have been a Member for no less than two (2) years on the date of the close of nominations.
c. The candidate must be no less than 18 years of age on the date of the close of nominations.
d. The candidate shall not be an owner, director or officer of an organization whose mission, events or activities compete with the Region’s or SCCA’s events or activities.
e. The candidate, if term-limited, must not have served as a Director in the most recent 18 months prior to the close of balloting of the then-pending election.

Link to it:

https://www.wdcr-scca.org/news/2018/5/15/are-you-interested-in-running-for-the-board-of-directors

[John Nesbitt]

I've never had a beef with the BOD until now.

But you just don't back date rules. You don't. Ever! Period. i don't care what good you think you are doing, It's shady and it's patently dishonest. And when you do then you deserve to get the full wrath of everything you just sowed.

I don't have any intention of apologizing for anything I've written about the BOD since they implemented this New Runoffs Criteria. If anything I think I've shown remarkable restraint.

Being a member of the BOD of the SCCA could be the most thankless job in Motorsport. According to the SCCA I think you need to be member for 2 consecutive years before you can run for BOD. This is only my second year back. Otherwise I'd do it and I guarantee you if I won I'd be the loose cannon on deck that finally rights this swamped ship back upright.

I had to search like hell to find this and finally found it on the Washington DC Region site. Because why in the world would the SCCA main office have it on theirs? Beats the heck outta me!! But here's the criteria if you want to run for the BOD:



The qualifications worthy of note to be a nominee by the committee are:
a. The candidate must be a Member in good standing.
b. The candidate must have been a Member for no less than two (2) years on the date of the close of nominations.
c. The candidate must be no less than 18 years of age on the date of the close of nominations.
d. The candidate shall not be an owner, director or officer of an organization whose mission, events or activities compete with the Region’s or SCCA’s events or activities.
e. The candidate, if term-limited, must not have served as a Director in the most recent 18 months prior to the close of balloting of the then-pending election.

Link to it:

https://www.wdcr-scca.org/news/2018/5/15/are-you-interested-in-running-for-the-board-of-directors

Those are the DC Region bylaws that you are quoting.

For the SCCA BOD, requirements are different. From the SCCA Bylaws (on the SCCA website in the File Cabinet):

Section 4. Nominations. Any 20 Regular Members of an Area may nominate a Regular Member of

that Area to be a candidate for election to the Board of Directors for that Area. All nominations shall

be made in writing signed by the Members making the nomination, and delivered to the office of the

Club by October 1 of the year preceding the year when the term of office is to start.

"... I guarantee you if I won I'd be the loose cannon on deck that finally rights this swamped ship back upright." -- Sounds like a winning campaign slogan. Very reminiscent of ... someone.

[Thomas Copeland]

So the process is a little more complicated than just running on a ballot. So I need to find one of the 20 members in my area to ask to nominate me? Given that the area I'm in had an election last year probably have to wait 2 years before I could run? Guess I have to find out more.

[mmi16]

The trouble being a loose cannon candidate is finding 20 other members that believe a loose cannon it needed and will sign the nomination petition.

[problemchild]

Guess I have to find out more.

Don't waste your time.

Put positive energy into your racing and growing your racing community. Then take it to race organizers in your area. They all want entries, and you can go in the direction that works best for your race group.

There may be good people in the SCCA system, but if they are all putting one oar in the water at a time, and fighting to control the rudder, is it any wonder that they keep going around in circles. If the people in the SCCA system, don't like criticism, then they should do a better job, or better yet, quit.

[GT1Vette]

Don't waste your time.

Put positive energy into your racing and growing your racing community. Then take it to race organizers in your area. They all want entries, and you can go in the direction that works best for your race group.

There may be good people in the SCCA system, but if they are all putting one oar in the water at a time, and fighting to control the rudder, is it any wonder that they keep going around in circles. If the people in the SCCA system, don't like criticism, then they should do a better job, or better yet, quit.

To date I have resisted the urge to get involved in this discussion, but I find I really need to express my agreement with Greg. For years I attempted to work from within to help guide the overall direction of the club before finally being convinced by the 2017 BoD to abandon those efforts last February. Since then I have focused on working with receptive organizations (many of which are SCCA regions) in "growing my racing community" (www.V8RRS.com in my case) and my life is much less stressful as a result. At this point SCCA continues to provide the best product for what we are trying to do with our series, but now I am very much monitoring what other groups are offering that might eventually better fit our needs. I find it's just as gratifying and is a much better use of my time and energy.

[Purple Frog]

The future model of SCCA may be different.

We are already starting to see success in the "new look".

Instead of promising a run group for every class each weekend, maybe SCCA will secure track dates and insurance, then sell off run groups to whichever class promoter can promise to fill a group. That puts the organization and promotion of a set run group down at the grassroots level. In that scenario, Right Coast, V-8 Road Racing, and FRP might submit that they want four run groups at a certain event. Then those groups are responsible for guaranteeing the entry of those run groups.

[BeerBudgetRacing]

Instead of promising a run group for every class each weekend, maybe SCCA will secure track dates and insurance, then sell off run groups to whichever class promoter can promise to fill a group.

Track day operators WILL do this, but they can't compete with SCCA on insurance, licensing, workers and safety.

Some regions are obviously already doing this - it's smart business.