Letter #38430 proposing a tweak to the rules making process

[RideMore]

Racers,

I summitted this letter this afternoon after many months of listening to the Formula Car community in general. If this makes sense to you, or if your against it for reasons I may not have thought of, please submit a letter to the CRB either for or against this concept. https://crbscca.com/ I'm trying to listen and help, but I may have this one wrong - up to you to decide and take action. Here's the letter and remember - post positive, post productive:

Letter #38430

Thanks to all involved, I’ve been having very good experiences with the SCCA’s rules making process. The communication has been quick, effective, and most importantly, rational. I do owe all of you an apology for not being a plugged-in, helping club member until recently. That is completely on me.

Now that I’m more active and talking to a lot more people, there is one hole, or area of suspicion, that would be healthy and wise to close in my opinion.

It makes sense to have the Race Memo and Technical Bulletin processes in addition to the normal full rules making process. The full process needs to be slow enough to ensure due diligence including member feedback. But there are moments in time when it is too slow and therefore the Race Memo and Technical Bulletin processes are the ideal path.

Many members are noticing that the Race Memo and Technical Bulletin processes are being used to make fairly big rules changes – like the FF tire rule for example. Now I and the FF community really appreciate that change and the speed in which it happened – I personally have received nothing but positive feedback on that change. However, there are some who believe they are not being given the appropriate opportunity to provide input. And that makes them suspicious of the process. Here is a proposed idea that will help remove suspicion from the process:

Give Race Memo’s and Technical Bulletins a 90-day effectivity (life) period, and in parallel during that time, put the change through the normal rule making process. Stated a different way: Have the Technical Bulletins and Race Memo’s be temporary for 90-days and they must be followed by the full rule making process to make the proposed change permanent.

There is a chance that from time to time a different answer or tweak will be uncovered during the full process than what was implemented via TB or RM. But overall, it will allow quick action when needed along with ensuring the intended due diligence.

This way quick decisions can be made to keep the trains running on time while also providing the club members with transparency and a chance to provide input which is vital to a healthy organization. At the moment, I hear from some club members that “Topeka is mandating changes, and we don’t have a voice”. I know that is not the intent and I believe this simple change will go a long way towards countering that feeling.

Thank you for your efforts,
Tony Stefanelli

[DaveW]

As the title says...

[GregAmy]

It makes sense to have the Race Memo and Technical Bulletin processes in addition to the normal full rules making process. The full process needs to be slow enough to ensure due diligence including member feedback.

How about something even easier? How about if our Board of Directors manages their oversight of the Club Racing Board instead of letting them run rampant with rules changes?

The way the system is supposed to work is that the BoD has delegated to the CRB the ability to make intra-season "compeititon adjustments", vernacularly described as "weights, plates, and tires". They can, for example, add or adjust intake restrictors, competition weights, and tire (but not wheel) sizes.

All other changes are required to be approved by the Board of Directors.

The following verbiage is directly copied from the CRB's Operations Manual. This manual is available (I think, to all members?) within my.scca.com, Member Resources, Road Racing Manuals, "Club Racing Board Operations Manual (rev2023)"

Highlighting below is mine.

The Club Racing Board is authorized to:

• Clarify a rule – characterized as adding/subtracting/changing language to reinforce the intent of the rule without changing the core definition.
  
• Make specification changes (competition adjustments) – this includes weight, and air/fuel management.
  
• Classify cars.
  
• Correct errors and omissions.
  
• Implement rule changes for all classes in cases where parts are no longer available and such a shortage would negatively affect the ability to compete.
  
• Recommend rule changes and car reclassification to the Board of Directors for approval.
  

Further, any comp adjustments are required to be halted by the August Fastrack with an effective date of no later than August 1st.

Rule Changes:

• Can sometime affect an entire class.
  
• Can also apply to significant changes to one car in a class.
  
• Should have member input.
  
• Shall be presented for BoD approval at their monthly meeting to be effective January 1st of the following year, special circumstances may demand immediate implementation.
  
• Safety related items may be dealt with at any time.
  

Anyone can review items up for consideration at "Cars and Rules", same place we get Fastrack and GCRs. Look for "Road Racing Recommended Rule Changes".

https://www.scca.com/pages/cars-and-rules

So, in summary, while I'm not clear exactly what you're referring to, if you're seeing regs changes outside of allowed comp adjustments that are suddenly getting tossed down from above without BoD consideration and opportunity for the membership to properly review and comment...then the CRB is overstepping its authority. That should be pointed out to your BoD representative.

Alternatively...if you're not keeping up with Fastrack and the proposed regs changes, and are surprised by them...that's on us.

Greg

[RideMore]

I'm doing a PM exchange with GregAmy and we are on the same page in that the goal is for members to have input for each and every rule change.

He's certainly right that the Board has to actively engage and oversee the CRB.

I have knowledge of the opposite risk occurring, which is the CRB being overrun by the board and rules changes being forced through without member or even CRB input.

This proposed rule change makes it such that no entity could make a rules change without member input. It's a s simple as that, it removes the possibility of anyone in the future from making a change without your input.

So you have three choices:

1. Support making it impossible for a rules change without your input via a letter
2. Support keeping it OK for a rules change to happen without your input via a letter
3. Do nothing and gamble you'll like it.

Thanks in advance to those who do either 1 or 2.