another IT7 tire question

They will make a recommendation that they feel will be the best for the class in 2007.

I didn't create this monster. This monster was created when the 2006 rules were activated just before the 2005 SIC and enforced for the event when there had been an open tire rule all year.

The REs make the final decision on all the regional class rules - every year. Some may vote their own opinion. Some may take the recommendations of the CRB, advisory boards, and the racers. ........ The IT7 advisory group will have this (incomplete-) information when they make a proposal. The CRB will also have this material. The REs will have this material. They can choose to use it or not.

Toni Creighton
[/b]
Click to expand...

I know I'm not involved, but as an outsider, my view might be interesting.

Maybe it's just the delivery, but in a way, the above quote makes me glad I don't race there, LOL! ( I added the colored wording) The italicized sections are a bit intimidating. Perhaps they were written to encourage participation, or maybe I'm reading into them.

The bottom line here is that the racers should be able to shape their own future, not an RE voting on the whim of his opinion. Now, if that opinion is brought about because the RE has been given no concrete information on what the racers want, then somebody has failed to protect their stake. Toni is at least trying to add information to the pot, but it's not a comprehensive method. Through no fault of hers of course, it's not even close to her job, from what I can see. (Perhaps she's trying to run the flag up the pole as she feels that decisions are being made without proper representation, and she doesn't like the possibility of backroom dealings, who knows?)

I was amazed by the numbers of IT7 racers taking part in competition as listed above. That's a significant group! The IT7 AdHoc commitee needs to take this seriously, and it appears by the deadlines posted, it's a bit late for that.

Without legitimate input, the REs would be wrong in changing the existing rule.

I'm reading some conflicting reports. Toni alludes to a flawed decision to start with, and rampant complaints from the SARRC Administrator, the ECR Administrator and the drivers.

Yet the poll has been quoted as being 5 to 1 in favor of the Spec tire. (along with complaints the actual tire wasn't listed, sufficient options weren't given, etc)

What the heck is going on here?? LOL.

With this much controversy, you all need to stop, create a comprehensive method to poll ALL the drivers, and get full range feedback. It might require two polls. One to eliminate the non starter conceptsl, another to choose the actual tire.

Poll 1- For the IT7 class, do you favor:
1- No spec tire
2- Spec tire XX
3- Spec tire YY
4- Spec tire ZZ
and so on....

....when results come in, throw out the obvious losers, post the results on the next poll, and re poll with just the choices that got the most votes.

Poll 2- Results from Poll 1 were tabulated as "...yada yada yada..." , Therefore, the choices have been narrowed. Do you favor:
1- No Spec Tire
2- Spec tire HHH
3- Spec tire GGG

This should help narrow down the choices, and give everyone a method to voice their opinion.

Some will vote in poll 1 for a spec tire, but not like the choice in Poll 2, and vote "No spec tire". Which is as it should be.

The same poll should be given the following year, OR the rule should be cast in stone for 2 or 3 years.

But this whole non comprehensive ask at the last minute and let the REs decide based on their whim stuff is pretty scary. IT7 drivers need to contact their IT7 ad hoc reps and tell them to get on the stick.
 
Hey Toni

I think the open tire rule make it a big advantage to the one with the most money, who can afford the best tires every race. According to the GCR I.T. states under Purpose, (Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in a low cost car with limited modifications.)

If the open tire rule passes there is no way the average racing can be competitive. Therefore taking out what the I.T. class was intended for.

A spec tire keeps the playing field equal and fair.
Driver IT7 #84
Sincerely

Ed Weiner
 
This may be the last post on this topic, I can understand a lot of peoples frustrations, but there are several issues here that need to be addressed in my own opinion. These are in no particular order, but here goes.

First, Toni got (volunteered for) her position a little while ago, saw that this issue was going to be "rubber stamped" with no input request sent out to those involved, and tried to inform those affected in the best way she could, given the circumstances, and time constraints.
Second, word starts to get out to the IT7 community, and all sorts of complaints crop up for things that have occurred BEFORE she took the position! (we can't change what has happened before people..).
Third, opinions fly as to how things got to this point, and the SEDIV people inform those that are reading as how to change things thru the proper channels (during this Toni attempts to explain the same thing, and personal attacks are thrown out).
Fourth, the great white north chimes in and an "official" "proclaims" that "Toni you created this mess, so you need to fix it..." then isn't heard from again once he is proven wrong. In my opinion, this "official" OWES TONI AN APOLOGY, based on his comments about a subject which he doesn't know the facts, just states that the same rules apply up north.
(I'll state right here that I don't know all the facts either, but I didn't boldly state that anyone "created this mess" either...)
Jake, this is a discussion board, and I appreciate all input whether I agree with it or not, so...as to your input, you (as always) make some very good points but....... I'm glad I don't race in your region either...(oh wait, I forgot to put in my..) LOL!!!

Bottom line for me is... I fully sympathize w/the racers with whom this ruling affects, but understand that there is a process for all these decisions, and if you weren't involved with the process, then I'm sorry, but get involved to make the changes you want. I am a member of this club, and I hate to see a volunteer worker get raked over the coals for doing what they thought was the right thing, which was to inform the members on what was about to be voted on ("with or without the members input"). Quite frankly, I also say
(remember, this is my own OPINION) shame on the other regions for jumping on a fellow official without knowing most of the "facts" surrounding this particular issue...As far as I'm concerned, there needs to be some public apologies made from several people!
For what it's worth, I don't drive in IT7, though it looks like it is a fun class!.. and this is my own opinion, based on my own knowledge of the SCCA, having been a member for...crap.. for quite a while.
Lets all go have fun racing!!!

Mark P. Larson
A.K.A "never short on words, or opinions" Larson
CFR#164010
 
Well, Mark, I do apologise if my comments were taken in the wrong way.

Form what I'm reading, there are several stories, and theres a bit of conflict that is visible. Which leads me to believe there might be more there than meets the eye. That's a bit worrisome.

There are claims the original poll was unfair, and there are concerns that decisions will be made without input form the drivers. Basicaly, teh IT7/spec tire thing has the appearance of a ship without steerage. And it seems that some who are a lot closer to the core think so as well.

That's all I meant ...it's a big decision, and affects a lot of people, and in a financial way.

That said, I have raced a couple times at RA, and had a good time....and there's no doubt that the talent is stout.
 
I am Rex Deffenbaugh – driver first, NC Region administrator second. I became an administrator to protect my privilege to drive from errant administration meddling. Now I see another occurrence of this meddling threatening my class again.

I was at the first meeting when IT7 was proposed by Lee Graser and Stan Hines and where a vote was taken to establish IT7. I voted. I watched as administration fought the establishment of IT7 using every resource available. I watched while extensive research was executed to find the tire most likely to fulfill the need for a spec tire including tire cost, life, and track support. Then I voted. I watched as the results reflected by Scott Galimore were returned.

IT7 was started as a class of has been RX7 cars that couldn’t compete in ITA. Its inception was because some drivers wanted an inexpensive venue to compete in, in similarly prepared cars. It was to be a class where one couldn’t spend his way to a win, like many other classes then and now. It was never a class for the world’s fastest man. There are many other classes and even series for the world’s fastest man. The great thing about this country is that you have choices. Yours may be to run in one of these faster classes or series, but IT7 will never afford one the recognition the world’s fastest man deserves – only the recognition of the fastest IT7 car and driver. Some may want to set their sights higher and leave the drivers of this class to our selves. As reported by Scott Galimore, the results of a vote stated that the drivers of this class want the tire rule now in place. Every class and venue of racing has rules, and this is one for racing in IT7. If you can’t find the setup, or you think it costs too much to make your car go fast in this class then ITA may be better for you – again another great choice.

In the end none of these questions are the issue here. The issue is someone making an underhanded attempt to change a rule established by the majority of drivers in this class. Every rule will have some opposition, but in this case a small minority has the ear of an administrator who seems to have the power and willingness to slide a rule change into place without a majority vote. Toni says rules will be reviewed for change every year. This is not true because of the sheer volume of rules in place. Why did she choose this rule and not the countless others to review? She says she doesn’t have the resources or time to complete a good pole. This is understandable but not a good reason to execute an incomplete pole and change rules as a result. Administrators feign concern about falling participation in IT7, but this doesn’t hold water when ITA is almost nonexistent, except for the IT7 drivers who have defected there, and administrators don’t seem concerned about that class. The drivers of this class will not tolerate the unwanted and unneeded meddling that may jeopardize the quality of the racing now experienced in IT7.

Rex
 
After seeing the ballot for the first time I would have to say there was nothing unfair about how the topic was presented. Perhaps a choice of which spec tire would have made the vote more encompassing but it's really water under the bridge at this point.

I still stand by my earlier statement.

there should not be a problem with reviewing the rule after a year of everyone running under it and having another vote. If it was a good idea then it will stand on its own merit. If not, and drivers do not like the results, it should be changed.[/b]
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with reviewing a rule change after a year or so to make sure the desired result was realized. Maybe after running on the Toyo's for a season everyone's opinion about the subject has changed. Also, with only 90 balllots, and having done it before, the logistics of having another vote do not seem overwelming. Hell, I'll do it. If SEDiv gives me the $ for postage and stationery and emails me the address database we'll have another vote. All you have to do is vote yes/no on a spec tire, choose for a list which tire and learn to live with the results.

Now that didn't hurt, did it?
 
Toni, I certainly hope that your comment about personal attacks was not directed at me for I have made no such attacks. People, please do NOT loose sight of ALL of the significant and important information that Toni has provided in her posts. I suppose it is readily available information but I doubt that there are many of us that understood it all before she told us. My complaint has been, and still is, with the coverage of Toni's activity as compared to what was required previously.

I can't speak for Andy Bettencourt but I suspect that the "monster" to which he referred is Toni's opinion gathering attempt and not the IT-7 spec tire rule and the previous ballot. I like Andy's (and other's) notion that the rules need to stay in place for a minimum amount of time. As Jake Gulick said, without legitimate input, the REs would be wrong in changing the existing rule and this whole non comprehensive ask at the last minute and let the REs decide based on their whim stuff is pretty scary.

Toni made several references to closed doors and lack of public information as if she was the one dragging this terrible thing out into the public eye. The framers of the rule were completely open and public about the issue. I don't see how anyone could consider an append on this unofficial forum to be more public, more open, and/or more morally correct than the ballot that was previously used. The framers of the IT-7 spec tire rule were REQUIRED to poll the entire driving community. That REQUIREMENT should still be REQUIRED. Working behind closed doors doesn't always involve closed doors. When a process is known to only include a minority and to exclude a significant percentage of the population and yet is still used when there is another process that has been proven to work, you have "closed door tactics".

Mark P. Larson says Toni tried to inform those affected in the best way she could, given the circumstances, and time constraints. I disagree. Given the circumstances, time constraints, and previous requirements, she should have left it alone for now. A perfectly valid and acceptable solution to the situation that Toni found herself in would have been to add something like the following to the SEDIV column in several issues of SportsCar and in the newsletters or on the websites of the affected regions:

"Hi, I'm the new DA of Tech. Officials have received some complaints about the current spec tire rule for IT-7. Those complaints range from a desire to have an open tire rule to questions about the validity of the previous ballot. I was not involved in that previous ballot or the process that put the current rule into place but based on that input, the lack of recent activity by the Advisory Committee, and the fact that the rule has been in place for a year, I feel that it should be revisited. Due to the nearness of the upcoming RE meeting, I don't feel it is prudent or possible to gather the necessary complete information for any type of change for the 2007 season. I will ask them to retain the current rules for another year but I will provide driver input to them for their mid-year meeting next year. I will gather that information in the following manner. Next May I will send a questionnaire to each of the IT-7 drivers seeking his or her input on the current rules and on any proposals that I see fit (based on personal observation and input from the competitors and officials). The questionnaire will be in the form of an email. You will be given a specific amount of time to respond. I will tally those results and provide them to the appropriate committees. Between now and next May, each IT-7 driver that wishes to have his or her opinion represented must send me their valid email address. It is your responsibility to insure that you and your fellow IT-7 drivers are aware of this list of email addresses, keep their current email address on the list, and respond to the questionnaire when asked. If you don't have an email address, one of your fellow competitors can help you use a tool like HotMail and the public library to perform the above."

Toni could set it up so that the DA of Tech holds the list of IT-7 email address, have the Advisory Committee do it, or appoint an Elections Committee to do it. The IT-7 drivers could be required to register for the IT-7 series just like they do for the ECR and CCPS series. Or a new requirement could be placed on any region wishing to host an IT-7 race such that the region is required to have each entrant provide their email address just like they have to provide their SCCA membership numbers. Or you could require each driver to provide a stamped self addressed envelope with their race entries.

I posted it on the thread in the General Discussion area but I'll do it here as well. Here's a copy of the IT-7 spec tire ballot and information sheet. It clearly indicated the spec tire choice, the rain tire options, the reasons behind the desire for a spec tire, the reasons behind the choice of the Toyo, their optional status for the pre-2005 SIC races, and their required status for the post 2005 SIC races. It even pointed out that the proposal required a vote by the REs and that the ballots were to be used to convince the REs and the Class Review Board that a majority of the SEDIV IT-7 drivers wanted to adopt the spec tire rule.

[attachmentid=513]
I'm told ballots were mailed out to each of the 90 IT-7 drivers who had appeared on the SARRC, ECR, and Carolina Cup result sheets for that current year. 64 ballots were returned. That means roughly 72% of the community voted -- that's an exceptionally high return rate when compared to other SCCA elections. 52 people voted Yes and 12 people voted No. The No votes included two folks who had not received a ballot even though they were part of the original mailing and one person whose address was incorrect on the original mailing. Even if each of those remaining 28% of the drivers had voted No, the proposal would have received a 58% passing margin.

Tony says one of the main issues is that the competitors were led to believe that they had the final say on the rules. Looking at the ballot, I just don't see how that is possible.

We're being told the previous balloting was suspect and that the current complaints are rampant. Lets gets some perspective on the issue. How many IT-7 drivers have complained about the spec tire rule? How many of the then current drivers did not receive a ballot? Is there or isn't there a problem? Are we talking about 4 or 5 people, 15 or 20, half of the drivers? How much real controversy has there been? I suspect the current supporters of the spec tire rule haven't talked to the previous DA, the REs, the Exec Steward, the SARRC Administrator, or the ECR Administrator this year because they didn't have a complaint and didn't know that it was a requirement to keep a current rule.

I've said before that I support the current IT-7 spec tire rule and that I do so because the drivers elected to have one. If Rickey or anyone else wants to propose an open tire rule or propose that the Hoosier tire be the spec tire, I will absolutely, 100% support them in their efforts to get that proposal out to the drivers. As long as they follow the same established guidelines for getting input from all of the driving community.
 
Scott,

You and all the posters to this thread are intelligent people, with the intention to make this class the best it can be. I agree whole heartedly with a lot of your points, and entirely agree that the whole IT7 community should be involved with the rules that shape your class.
I'll provide one final point for my point of view on where you disagree with me. From the best information I can gather, the "Spec Tire" rule would have been "rubber stamped" into effect for the next year with "no imput from the Drivers" if Toni hadn't posted her request. The process you described for getting a poll from all the drivers is a moot point for this years rules...regardless!
From this point forward, all the ways of getting a fair and honest you described should start now, as the decision has already been made for you all. Feel free to correct me, but my opinion still is that she did the best she could to at least let you express your input shortly before the vote was to occur! If she had said nothing, this thread would not exist...Again, if I am missing something, please fill me in.
We all love this club, and want to better it, but IMHO I hate to see someone be brought to task (and personally insulted-not aimed @ you) for doing the right thing in a completely VOLUNTARY position.
She cannot change the past, and now all the readers of this thread know what to do in the future to make the changes they want for next year. :dead_horse:
Again, please correct me if I am wrong on any account! :rolleyes:
Thanks for listening.
Respectfully,
Mark P. Larson
CFR#164010
 
I can't speak for Andy Bettencourt but I suspect that the "monster" to which he referred is Toni's opinion gathering attempt and not the IT-7 spec tire rule and the previous ballot. I like Andy's (and other's) notion that the rules need to stay in place for a minimum amount of time. As Jake Gulick said, without legitimate input, the REs would be wrong in changing the existing rule and this whole non comprehensive ask at the last minute and let the REs decide based on their whim stuff is pretty scary.

[/b]
Click to expand...

You are 100% correct about my comments. The way the mesage comes across only serves to confuse those who don't know what is going on (which is everyone). The perception created is that the RE's are going to decide what the rules will be unless people speak up. No info on whether they plan on changing rules or rubber stamping current rules - just confusion and a call to action with no stated goal.

We all appreciate the efforts of all vounteers - hell, I do my share - but lets do things in a way that makes sense. I have personally received 7 PM's on this topic from SE drivers asking me how things work up here because they feel they get railroaded more often than not. I am willing to bet it isn't because they are, it's just perception. Communication is key - but dangerous if it isn't done right.

AB
 
Andy,

I will state this again, until people realize the point I'm trying to get across. The tire issue was going to be rubber stamped for the next season...PERIOD..per the existing procedures in place as of now. In a warped sort of way,we agree on this subject, that the members should have been notified of the rule coming up for a ruling for next year. But since this did not happen before Toni took over, she did the best she could. Wait till next year, and get involved.. hindsight is a wonderful thing, but cannot change the past.
About that apology for saying that Toni "created this monster???? Thank you all for your opinions..they all count!
Mark
 
Andy,

I will state this again, until people realize the point I'm trying to get across. The tire issue was going to be rubber stamped for the next season...PERIOD..per the existing procedures in place as of now. In a warped sort of way,we agree on this subject, that the members should have been notified of the rule coming up for a ruling for next year. But since this did not happen before Toni took over, she did the best she could. Wait till next year, and get involved.. hindsight is a wonderful thing, but cannot change the past.
About that apology for saying that Toni "created this monster???? Thank you all for your opinions..they all count!
Mark [/b]
Click to expand...

Mark,

We all make mistakes on e-mail, on these forums, it's a fact of life. We just have to reset and move forward. I am sorry if Toni is offended by my comments but I stand by them. They created confusion where there needed to be none. It's ok...we have all done it.
 
Mark, you're right, we're very close to being completely on the same page. I think most folks were ok with the current IT-7 rules being "rubber stamped" this year. They were given no reason to expect otherwise. Note that no one has mentioned the need to review the only other rule listed in the IT-7 section of the class rules on the SEDIV website, the rule that actually establishes the IT-7 class. I think it is normal for folks to expect no change unless told otherwise. Toni has been involved with the SCCA long enough that she should have known that a few weeks wasn't sufficient time to poll the entire driving community. She had access to what was required of the framers of the spec tire rule and to the results that they had received. The "best that she could have done" would have been to simply inform us that there was a new sheriff in town, that she saw an issue, and that she intended to address it at the proper time. So I have to agree with Andy's assertion that she created the [current] monster.

As you know, I am a massive champion for the driver's right to shape the rules for their own regional class. Yet, I feel that the rules should have been "rubber stamped" this year. There are several reasons behind this belief. First, there hasn't been sufficient time for the community to judge the spec tire rule's effectiveness. Second, the supporters did not know they needed to voice their support of it each year. Third, [it appears that] only the non-supporters of the spec tire rule had Toni's and the other official's ears. Fourth, no one has supplied ANY indication of the actual extent of the complaints (re, number of complainants). Fifth, the claims of impropriety during the previous ballot were false. Sixth, and most importantly, I would rather have no input delivered to the REs than to have them receive heavily slanted input.

My point is the REs should have been told that it wasn't possible to gather proper input, that the information would be gathered in the future, and that it would be appreciated if they left the rules alone for another year.
 
OK,

This could get lengthy, but here goes. Andy, as I said, we agree on a few things, but here is where we part ways.
The perception created is that the RE's are going to decide what the rules will be unless people speak up. No info on whether they plan on changing rules or rubber stamping current rules - just confusion and a call to action with no stated goal.
That was the REALITY, not the perception. She said that the RE's weren't planning on changing the rules, so if the members wanted to provide imput, they needed to do so. No confusion, no "call to action" just stating what was going to happen, and asking for driver imput. How can that be a bad thing? No stated goal? What goal needs to be stated when, again, all she did was ask for input? I still don't see the need for your statement "You created this monster, and you need to fix it". That was my only issue with your posts, and I still feel you owe her an apology. The "I've done it myself in e-mail" statement begs the question..Have you ever admitted you were wrong, and apologized for it? I know for a fact that Toni, and I have.....
I am still doing my best to see both your contentions that she should have said nothing, and allowed the rule to be rubber stamped for next year. I completely agree that the rule should be left in place (spec series, spec tire), but that is my opinion, and it doesn't affect me one way or another.
I just have a hard time understanding how you two can find fault with her attempt to let the affected drivers know what was about to happen, let them know that if they had an opinion, they needed to voice it, and informed them of how the decision making process works. I agree that posting here, and on other websites would only get the attention of the people who read those websites, but I feel that it was a far better option than saying nothing.
Judging by all the responses posted here, I think that there would have been a far bigger sense of outrage in the IT7 community if the tire rule had been rubber stamped into effect without anyone knowing about it.
Can you two imagine the backlash it would cause if (after the fact) the drivers found out that they could have had an opportunity to express their opinion, but weren't even given a chance to comment, because no one told them they had a chance to do so? Read all the dissenting e-mails about the initial ballot that are in this thread...Most of the posts are complaining about not being given a choice about which tire...and others are complaining they didn't even get a ballot. I can hear them now.."We weren't told that the "spec tire rule was going to be voted on!! More proof that the officials don't care what the drivers think!!!!" How would you 2 propose to deal with that crowd?
As a driver, I am always glad when someone informs me of rules that are about to be voted on that directly affect me. To me, the "behind closed doors politics" is what goes on in our government (no black helicopter theories apply here!), and has no place in our CLUB. I just think that any factual information provided to the drivers, that can enlighten them as to what is going on about rules that will affect all of them running a particular series, can only be beneficial to them, as long as the info is not biased in one direction. Thank you both for your intelligent, and non insulting ways of expressing your opinions, and I hope mine are recieved in the same way.
Present your counterpoints as soon as you two have time, as they are always revealing, and I'm all ears!
( Just a side note, after someone read this thread, I was asked to join the Stewards Program.. Scary thought, but maybe after my kids are off to College!..please send your dissenting comments to my RE B)
Props to you both!
Mark
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Mark,

For some reason I am having trouble with the 'quote' botton, so bear with me...

1. I can not find in any of Toni's posts where she said that the RE's were not planning on changing the rules. Her posts are long - and I could have missed it, but that is the root of the issue. I will cut and paste her posts below for review.

2. What she did IMHO is whip drivers into a frenzy for imput IMPLYING that something was going to happen with statements like this:

The REs will vote on the IT7 rules for 2007 on July 29th. They will do this with or without any driver input. This will occur on July 29 with or without any proposals from the class review board or the advisory committees. This will occur even if you don't voice an opinion. This will occur even if I don't assist the advisory committees in gathering information. This will occur even if the advisory committees don't give an opinion.[/b]
Click to expand...

I can't find where she said WHAT was going to happen. Just a 'you had better vote or the RE's are going to make the decision for you'. That is what I am talking about.

3. Please quote me where I said she should have said nothing. All I said is that it should have been said in a different, more complete manner with all the info. I don't believe that was done and the result was guys posting what they posted. A simple post like this would have worked perfectly:

'The SeDiv RE's plan to vote on the 2007 version of the IT7 rules on July 29 at their mid-year meeting. The plan is for the rules to be carried over from last year so if you have input you would like to be heard please either send it directly to your RE or to me by July 6th so I may compile it and forward it to the group for their review." Instead, we got:

Hi,
Several days ago I took a new assignment as DA of tech for SEDiv. That includes being chiar of the regional car class rules. At the mid year meeting at the end of July I must make a proposal to the SEDiv REs on regional car class rules for the 2007 season. You are the racers and should have a voice in the rules.
So I'm asking questions
The regional car class rules cover all regional races, SARRC, ECR, Pro IT, plain regionals, any and all regional races in SEDiv (unless the supps of an even say other wise). The current rules are posted on www.sedivracing.org
IT7 and ITA cars eligible to run as IT7, your question is
Do you want an open tire rule? Do you want a spec tire?
SM regional cars
Do you want an open tire rule? Do you want to use the same tire used for SM for national races?
Send you response to me
[email protected]
Thanks for your input.
Toni Creighton[/b]
Click to expand...

Again, very well-meaning, but this all implies that ALL THE RULES are up for a rework and you should voice your opinion. The issues guys had was that it seemed like everything could change without getting everyones opinion.

I still stand by my position that, even though well meaning, Toni created this 'frenzy' (since you don't like the term 'monster'). I stated above that I was sorry if I offended her but that I stood by my comments - and still do. Sorry if you don't like them. There are at least 3 others that have posted they agree with me.

I will also disagree with you in this respect: I don't beleive people have ANY right to complain when the STATUS QUO runs from year to year. If the 2007 rules got rubber stamped indentical to 2006 with no driver input - tought cookies. You ALWAYS have a right and the means to tell someone you don't like HOW IT IS. The beef is that Toni IMPLIED that the rules could have CHANGED without driver input. THAT is what is bogus. THAT is what got peoples hair on end - especially because there was no time, nor the effort to get a majority opionion.

I am always glad when people get informed they CAN do something or NEED to do something too. The point is that you have to do it the right way so it does more good than harm.

And while we may disagree on the message - or the symmantics of the issue, I also thank you for the professional-level discussion.

AB



Toni's posts:

Please read the request for input of opinion for IT7 and SM regional tires on the main page.
Replys may be submitted until July 6. After that I will send the tabulation to the committee (the Committee is the Chiefs of Tech for the regions listed in the rules for the Website) for opinion. The REs will approve or disapprove the proposal at the mid year meeting on July 29.
Please put a reply either in the text or the subject box. An empty email doesn't really say much.
Toni Creighton[/b]
Click to expand...
racerpepe and others,
In 2005 the IT7 Advisory Board took an opinion poll by hard copy. They presented the opinions to the DA of Tech. Those opinions were presented to the Class Review Board (chiefs of tech in the racing regions) for opinion at some time during the year. It was discussed. I wasn't a chief of tech or DA at the time but I was award of the discussion. The DA of tech then presented the proposal for an IT7 rules change to include a spec tire to the REs at their mid year meeting last July. The REs voted on the proposal and it was passed for the 2006 season.
It is the time to review the rules for the 2007 season. Rules are reviewed every year.
At the annual meeting in January 2007, if you would like to make a proposal for the 2008 season which begins in the fall of 2007, please attend the tech session (having presented your proposal for the agenda in December).
This is late notice to begin the review for 2007 but I acquired the DA position just a little over 2 weeks ago. I am working very hard to have a committee to review each of the class rules, including IT7. Some classes didn't have an Advisory Board Committee last year. I am establishing those Advisory Boards.
I will take the recommendations from each Advisory Board to the Class Review Board and then to the REs. I am attempting to complete this quickly because of time restraints. The mid year meeting is July 29. And before there can be a proposal to the REs everything must go to the Class Review Board for their approval or disapproval. Time is very short. I am attempting to do this publically so that there is no question on the response or procedure.
If you would like for IT7 drivers to send their response by US Mail, please have them refer to the SEDivRacing.org website for my address. It is listed in several places. Replies must be received before July 6 – next Thursday.
I must have the final proposals from the Class Review Board no later than July 22 so they may be included in the material for the REs. Material will be distributed to the REs on July 26. Time is short.
BTW – another responsibility of the DA of tech is to be the chief of tech at the double national. That's a 4 day assignment this weekend that will take a wee bit of time. Time is short.
I have received your reply and it will be counted with the rest of them.
Toni Creighton
SEDiv DA Tech[/b]
Click to expand...
The REs will vote on the IT7 rules for 2007 on July 29th. They will do this with or without any driver input. This will occur on July 29 with or without any proposals from the class review board or the advisory committees. This will occur even if you don't voice an opinion. This will occur even if I don't assist the advisory committees in gathering information. This will occur even if the advisory committees don't give an opinion.
I was appointed DA 5 weeks before the vote on 2007 rules was to occur. Nothing had been started by any of the class advisory boards. Some classes didn't even have an advisory board. The IT7 committee for rules review for the 2006 season, under the direction of the previous DA, had not initiated a review for the 2007 season. There are time restraints. I could have chosen to ask the class review board if they wanted to accept all the class rules as posted without asking the advisory boards. (I have since found out that some of the class advisory boards have not been contacted for opinion in years. I have found that members of some committees have not been contacted in years and didn't realize their names were still listed as members of the committees.)
What I chose to do was to begin gathering information to assist all of the advisory boards, not just the one for IT7. I will take the information I gather to the advisory boards. Their reply will be given to the class review board. The opinion of the class review board will be given to the REs for their decision. The REs would have made their decision with out any of the above process. I chose to assist with the gathering of information for the committees so that some driver opinion may possibly be used in the decision by the REs.
Why did I not mail you a ballot and receive replies by mail? Very good question. The answer: 1) I didn't have time to identify every individual who races, has raced, is building a car, owns a car, or in some other way is connected with IT7 in the Southeast Division. I couldn't have completed the task any better than your committee did for the 2006 rules review. 2) I didn't have the desire to address that many envelops. 3) I was not going to spend my own money on postage (I spend enough as it is so others can race without additional $$$ for postage to you.). 4) Your advisory board could have done this again, but didn't, 5) The REs will make their decision one way or the other on July 29, 6) there were 5 weeks from the time I accepted this position (one of which had to be spent on the double national) to accomplish any portion I chose to do, 7) your electronic opinion is your vote for this year and is just as valid as your paper opinion was for a vote last year, 8) The REs make the decision with or without input, 9) I chose to assist the committees gather information because no one else had begun the process, 10) Electronically was quick and easy and I didn't have to spend my own money to offer to take your opinion, 11) if you had wanted the process to have been completed in a different way you should have started it for yourself. Reason # 443 – I didn't do it because I didn't do it. Should I be DA for 2007 (an appointment made by the 2007 Executive Steward) I will not use paper and postage then either. Reason # 999) You have so much fun griping and complaining electronically that I though you would prefer to give your opinion again electronically.
Now as DA I have access to the SCCA member license data. That data does not identify what class you race. The permanent number information lives in my house. The keeper of the information doesn't give out your personal address to anyone and wouldn't give them to me either. (No I didn't look through his files while he was gone!) I don't have access to any region's data for racers with out contacting every registrar and requesting information. They shouldn't give your personal information to me either.
If you don't want the racer opinion to be given electronically, then you can choose not to give yours electronically.
I did it this way because this is the method I chose to use. You want it done another way – then do it. You didn't take the initiative now you want to complain about the way I did it. Soooo SCCA.
You're welcome.
Toni[/b]
Click to expand...
Thank you for your comments.
The tire issue for IT7 and SM would have gone to the REs along with items from other classes whether I became the DA or if the previous DA was still there. It has been brought to the attention of the Executive Steward, the Directors, and many REs by numbers of people in the IT7 driving community. It was in contention before I accepted this position. I'm just a bit more public with requests for information than the previous DA. I don't work behind closed doors as some tend to do. Open information tends to attract attention. Thank you for your attention.
Your advisory board is working very hard to gather information to help them prepare a proposal for the 2007 rules. I am assisting them. I will give them the tally tonight to use for information. They will return their collective decision to me over the weekend. Their decision along with any information they wish to pass along to the Class Review Board will be sent at the first of the week. The decision of the Class Review Board will be passed on to the REs. The REs will make the decision on all of the Regional Classes for 2007 at their meeting July 29.
If you wish to assist with this task, please do so. Send you information either to me to pass along or directly to the IT7 committee. Their names and contact information has be listed somewhere on this board. Time is short. Do it now.
And as far as getting your personal information from the SARRC Administrator or the permanent number keeper, as I said before, he doesn't give out your personal information to any one, even me.
Your assistance, opinions on the tire issue, opinions of the process for rules review, your willingness to run for office in your region, and your willingness to volunteer are all welcome. Your personal attacks are not.
Toni Creighton[/b]
Click to expand...
The committee is working on this. I'm merely assisting them. I am collecting opinion at my email address [email protected]. The committee is the three previous members and 2 new volunteers - they are listed somewhere on this website in another thread. They are professional people with interests in IT7. They will make a recommendation that they feel will be the best for the class in 2007.
I didn't create this monster. This monster was created when the 2006 rules were activated just before the 2005 SIC and enforced for the event when there had been an open tire rule all year. There has been much controversy and discussion all year. Many IT7 drivers contacted the previous DA, the REs, the Exec Steward, and grumbled at every person they could find all year. Requests for rule review have been made by the drivers themselves, the SARRC Administrator, and the ECR Administrator. This all fell in my lap (along with the other regional classes) at the end of May.
The committee and the other regional class advisory boards will provide a proposal for 2007 rules over the weekend. These proposals will be given to the Class Review Board (chiefs of tech in the racing regions) as required in the regional class rules on the sedivracing.org website as soon as I have everything (Sunday night, Monday AM?) The final rules recommendation from the CRB will be presented to the REs for acceptance or rejection at the mid year meeting July 29th.
One of the main issues is that last year the competitors that actually received a paper request for opinion were led to believe that they had the final say on the rules and that they were cast in stone forevermore without review. There were many who did not receive the request for input. The REs make the final decision on all the regional class rules - every year. Some may vote their own opinion. Some may take the recommendations of the CRB, advisory boards, and the racers. One way or the other the REs will make the final decision on the 2007 rules just as they did in 2006. They would have also made the decision without anyone's opinion being asked. I asked for an opinion. The IT7 advisory group will have this information when they make a proposal. The CRB will also have this material. The REs will have this material. They can choose to use it or not.
Toni Creighton[/b]
Click to expand...
 
AB,

Good points, and again, this shows how two people can read the same posts, and come up with different conclusions. You read that her statements implied certain things, while I read her posts as a statement of facts. Fair enough. The previous statement was not intended to imply that you are fabricating anything, just that we both got different impressions from Toni's posts.
It's all good, and, again, thanks for your point of view in an intelligent manner.
One last thing..you said you were sorry if Toni took offense to your posts. It was I that took offense with the whole "monster" quote. I have not spoken to Toni in years, so I don't want anyone to think that I'm speaking for her. This has all been from my own perspective.

We shall agree on most of the points discussed, and agree to disagree on the rest.
I agree that we need to move on, as this is all a moot point now.
Thanks,
Mark P. Larson
 
I find it interesting that the same issues are being mirrored here as we've had in the SM spec tire decision (debacle). I'm on the advisory board for the SEDIV sm community and I must say I have SERIOUS problems with the way information was collected on this issue.

1. I'm wondering why this rule is up for change anyway? Why suddenly after the decision was made last year to use a spec tire are we now reconsidering it?
2. The method to collect driver input was completely flawed. I can give details if people would like but let's say that it was not a fair representation of people's opinions. Or I should say, I believe that since the voting procedures changed alot and I don't really even know how the data was collected.


I have to believe there is some sort of impetus for open tires in the background. I just don't see why this change is coming along now.

Jason Holland
SM Advisory Board SEDIV
 
Jason,

To my ( limited ) knowledge, the rules for certain classes come up for review every year. The debate here was because Toni became the SEDIV "rep" for SM and IT7, and saw that the rule were going to be "rubber stamped" for the next year. IMO she thought that the drivers might want to know, and posted about it. From that point on, the various opinions were posted.

Bottom line, the rules were not changed, and hopefully all who have read the entire thread have the knowledge to change (or leave in place) the rules for 2007, and will act on them accordingly.

I hope this helps!

Mark P. Larson
CFR #164010
 
Mark,

thanks for the info, but really what I was pointing out was I thought it strange that in both situations, both IT7 and SM, the drivers had spoken out last year overwhelmingly for spec tire, but now suddenly this year we are reviewing the process again. In the case of SM, I think the polling process was a little weird to say the least.

regards,

JAson
 
It never ceases to amaze me that after a new rule is voted in and after a while people start to realize maybe the best decision was not made nothing can be done to correct the situation because “we just voted on it.”

That happened here in GA when they deregulated natural gas because it was felt such a move would lower prices due to competition. What a joke. Deregulation consisted of adding a layer of middle men (“natural gas marketers”), and their fees and the price shot up. People bitched, but in the end the legislature decided it was too costly for the state (and them in reduced campaign contributions) and too late to do anything about it. IIRC GA Power, seeing the frustration of the public, came along later and wanted to be a regulated supplier but it was shot down because that would not be fair, price wise, to the marketers.

I say B.S. If everybody made a mistake why live with it any longer than you have too? That’s just plain stupid.

What’s worse is leaders who do not make a decision and pass the buck thereby making the rest of us live with some B.S. because they “don’t know all the ramifications of making a change”, like it’s impossible to change it back to the way it was. More cowardly ignorance.

It is entirely possible that the drivers voted on the spec tire to save money, but found out they don’t like the reduction in performance. If that’s the case, why live with it any longer than you have to?
 
It is entirely possible that the drivers voted on the spec tire to save money, but found out they don’t like the reduction in performance. If that’s the case, why live with it any longer than you have to?
[/b]
Click to expand...

A lot of things are "possible" but there needs to be a known mechanism for actually determining what the entire population of IT7 (And SM) drivers think.

Maybe somebody should talk to the IT7 drivers reps and create a long term plan for the health of the class. Maybe a method is to create another poll system and have it in place for the next go around. Put it in peoples mailbox, their email box, and post it on the regions web site. As well as on the Regions on line registration site.

Tell the reps to get on it early, and be thorough. What I'm seeing is a lot of back and forth and suppositions...but the facts are whats important. Its the class reps job to determine fairly what those facts are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top