Am I reading this right?

How can someone know what is being presented until it's presented to someone?

The job of the driver advocates was to collect the data and present it to the committee and members at large. It wasn't a 'proposal'. The committee heard the info, heard the debate on said info and made a decision.

Like I said, send your thoughts to the NARRC committee with your ideas on how to make the process better. I am sure there will be some voluteers who will happily implement the new plan next year. I know I will.
 
WOW!! I guess I need to fire up the old laptop more often. First, let me say I as a driver's rep had no idea that the money fund was dissolved. Second, I am not in favor of such a thing and argued emphatically to preserve the prestige of the NARRC series (money bringing some prestige to the series), thirdly, there was more than just IT drivers reps weighing in... the 1 of 1 guys had some strong opinions. Fourthly, the agenda of the commitee was not known...it seemed that we were reporting in a fact finding manner to the comittee. Fifthly, I was present at the awards banquet thinking that I might have actually won something...(how niave am I?), meaning I am all in favor of trophies and money. Sixthly, I doubt I'll ever volunteer for something in the SCCA again.....

R
 
Rob, thank you for serving on this committee. There is no question in my mind that Narrc got off track a little in the last couple of years. I don’t think there was any bad intent by the Narrc committee but with the environment getting harder and harder to put on races I think the Narrc committee tried to structure the rule to protect their region’s franchises. Almost all of the reforms recommended by the committee and enacted by the Narrc committee seem very positive to me. It is sad that you did not enjoy the experience, it seems that a lot of good work was accomplished, be proud of that.
Andy, it would seem from Rob’s statements that the ITA rep did not even know about the plan to abolish the points fund and use the money for administrative purposes.
A couple of simple questions.
Was the idea to abolish the payouts and use the money for other purposes proposed to the Narrc committee in your presentation as Serge told me or is he mistaken?
If so whose idea was it to propose this change to the Narrc committee to do so?
What group of drivers feedback was this proposal based on?
 
Doc Bro said:
WOW!! I guess I need to fire up the old laptop more often. First, let me say I as a driver's rep had no idea that the money fund was dissolved. Second, I am not in favor of such a thing and argued emphatically to preserve the prestige of the NARRC series (money bringing some prestige to the series), thirdly, there was more than just IT drivers reps weighing in... the 1 of 1 guys had some strong opinions. Fourthly, the agenda of the commitee was not known...it seemed that we were reporting in a fact finding manner to the comittee. Fifthly, I was present at the awards banquet thinking that I might have actually won something...(how niave am I?), meaning I am all in favor of trophies and money. Sixthly, I doubt I'll ever volunteer for something in the SCCA again.....

R
Click to expand...

Rob you may not have been persuasive enough in your arguments. I think if you would have showed up with a certain Jack Handle they would have taken you more seriously.:D
 
Dick,

Yes. It was presented that evening as an idea that a majority of the responding drivers wanted. The 'top 3 only' was also presented as an idea some drivers wanted. I believe that led into a splinter discussion on trophies, the cost of 'weekly' trophies and the logistics of managing any yearly trophy plan.

The feedback to abolish the money fund wasn't from one person, it was derived from the feedback of those who responded. Even though it wasn't something I wanted (again, I wanted to go to a top-3 and make those payouts more substantial), I was obligated to report the info as it was my duty.

Just because Rob's group didn't bring it up doesn't mean it wasn't there. If we want to weigh feedback more based on subscription and conrtibution, fine by me!

Patullo for ITA / IT7 drivers rep in 2009!
 
Andy I guess I just don’t understand what process you used to obtain this feedback. I read the threads, I watched the meeting on u tube, and I knew Rob was the rep for my race group. I did not reach out to him because nothing I heard or read seemed objectionable and honestly I have a pretty full plate with the club right now with driving, working and special projects.
I just am trying to figure out where this idea to fundamentally change the Narrc committee structure from a simple efficient operation to one that has the potential to spawn a cumbersome expensive infrastructure came from.
If you compiled and presented the input from the driver’s reps can you say where this proposal came from?
Serge said at the Narrc meeting this was presented as being the will of the drivers. I am trying to find out if that was a reasonable representation and so far I have no evidence to back that up.
 
OK, The reason I said I said I would no longer volunteer was because as a voice (I) we were not heard or ignored. Also, unless my memory is failing I don't remember any discussion of the abolishment of the money fund. I was never under the impression that the NARRC series was in line for any sort of major overhaul, in fact, the meetings seemed to be geared toward minor tweaks to make the series more subscribed. I also remember lots of discussion about the number of events a driver can miss and the depth of the pointing process in the field. It seems that there may have been an agenda off camera that I wasn't aware of. As far as my group bringing it up; I brought up what was relayed to me as important....most driver's I spoke to had no major changes other than what I mentioned. Why was something that wasn't broke fixed??


R
 
Rob - you and I may not think it was broken, but a lot of people thought it could be better I guess.

Dick - Here is what I did:

I put together a very long and generic sheet of topics that each rep was to use to trigger feedback on (based on the LRP town hall mostly). Was more of ideas to start a thought process, than a firm outline. Things like, points, events, tracks, trophies, quantity of events, minimum events, quality of events, double vs. single, structure of events, consolodation of run groups, maximizing track time, etc.

I presented the varies pieces of feedback to the open forum. The attendees debated. The NARRC committee made their decisions at a later meeting that I did not attend.
 
So now we have at least one (1) Drivers Rep (Rob) and one (1) driver (Tim/me) who were actually at the first NARRC drivers meeting at LRP in August, as well as the NARRC Banquet and in conjunction with Andy who reported at that Forum, and as far as we all can remember there was no mention of Abolishing the Money Fund.

It would appear that the system for abolishing the fund was broken, not the fund itself.
 
Okay Andy, help me out here, your only report to the Narrc committee was at the November open forum and you were not at the Narrc March meeting where this was voted?
Did your report say that the points fund should be abolished and that the money should be used half for banquet and year end trophies and half for advertising and promotion.
I am really trying to figure out how this happened.
 
My 'report' included the feedback that was given to me from the drivers reps (all of them, not just Rob). That was one of the data points.

If you want to know anything else about the decision, ask the people who made it.
 
Okay Andy if I understand you abolishing the points fund was one of the recommendations in your report on behalf of the drivers committee?
Can you tell me where that recommendation came from?
Was this at the November open forum or at a Narrc meeting?
 
Don't say 'you' Dick. *I* didn't abolish anything. I am not on the NARRC committee. I am just the deliverer of collected information.

Yes, it was one of the recommendations. The recommedantions, various feedback and open debate were all delivered at the NARRC portion of the open forum in November.

I don't recall specifically what group or what drivers but I do remember thinking to myself that it kinda stinks that the people who are not 'into' the money are from lower subscribed groups where payout is very small. As is traditional in NER and NeDiv, no matter the size or your class or run group, you get equal time both on the track and in the rules making process.
 
Thank you Andy, I really am trying to figure out what happened. As might have figured out I think this is a bad idea.:) Not the part about abolishing the points fund, I don’t care about that. If the proposal had been stop the payouts, reduce the assessment to $2 and upgrade trophies I would have said fine but what has happened here I can’t get behind.

I have talked to some of the people who voted on this and the feedback I am getting is they did what the drivers wanted. My argument is the process was flawed.

It is unfortunate that you can’t remember where the idea came from or how it was vetted. I hope to learn more about that if anyone can remember. The Narrc committee does not have the structure to effectively impellent this program. That is the beauty of the Narrc committee, it is uncomplicated.

Oh and I said “Okay Andy if I understand you abolishing the points fund was one of the recommendations in your report on behalf of the drivers committee?” I see no problem with the word you in that context, do you?:shrug:
 
dickita15 said:
Oh and I said “Okay Andy if I understand you abolishing the points fund was one of the recommendations in your report on behalf of the drivers committee?” I see no problem with the word you in that context, do you?:shrug:
Click to expand...

I realize I've got absolutely no business in this discussion, but I couldn't help but observe what appears to be some miscommunication, possibly based on lack of punctuation.

Maybe this would work better:

"Okay Andy, if I understand you, abolishing the points fund was...."

I'm thinking Andy read your original statement as:

"Okay Andy, if I understand, your abolishing the points fund was...."

Jeez, what in Hell am I doing... I need to get out of here and get to work on the Volvo!!!
 
Gary you are absolutely right, a comma would have helped. Didn’t see that, I knew what I wrote, and I usually try to be punctual.:rolleyes:
I don’t mean to crucify Andy here and I appreciate the fact that he is willing to stand up and say what he knows.:happy204:
My problem is the people who vote said “Andy said this is what the drivers want”. I am just trying to figure out haw Andy got stuck in that situation.
 
Seeing how all this has unfolded is really dissappointing.....

I was told by an "old salt" who raced in the SCCA with his brother many moons ago the politics are what's killing the club....I guess some things will never change.

Socialism masking as democracy.

R
 
Some observations based upon the preceding comments in this thread:

- Since the NARRC really is a driver's series, and since there is quite a bit of controversy over this issue, why not simply put any changes on "hold" until further notice? We can simply decide that this is what we want, and the NARRC committee ought to be able to implement, yes? We are only One race into the season, so this shouldn't be a major issue with anyone at this point in time.

- We need to remember that all of the folks in this deal are VOLUNTEERS and that there is often quite a bit of verbal "stuff" thrown in their direction. I gotta believe that all of these folks are well intended, and some times, even the best of intentions turn out to have unintended negative results.

- Pretty much everyone uses email these days, yes? Why not print up a short notice to be given out at registration at all upcoming events through July, with the content of the notice being..........."if you want to have input on the NARRC series rules, schedule, points, prizes, etc, please fill in your name, email address, etc. From time to time you will be asked for input on various issues."
Then, we have a mass email go out to the NARRC drivers who have said YES they want to have input, we ask for input, and make decisions based on that. How much better can that get? Direct input into the decision making process. If you don't add input, your right to bitch is gone, in my opinion.

- A system like this (email input and communication) takes a lot of the mystery out of the decision making process, and takes our volunteer NARRC committee folks off the hook for the most part........which I would think that they would appreciate. It also gives every contributing driver more of an "ownership" role in the entire series...........and THAT is always a good thing.

my 2 cents, and thanks for listening.

Tim M
 
You know Rob there may be some truth in some of that, but I don’t believe anyone is pushing agendas that they know are wrong. I strongly believe that everyone involved in this is doing what they feel is best for the club. Not a self serving motive in the bunch, well maybe Joe.:D
 
dickita15 said:
I strongly believe that everyone involved in this is doing what they feel is best for the club. Not a self serving motive in the bunch, well maybe Joe.:D
Click to expand...

See dick your punctuation was wrong again the smilley should have been more like this:eek:. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top