Hey, ITAC - Procedural Question?

K

Knestis

Moderator
From the August 2003 FasTrack

The following items have been
REFERRED to their respective advisory
committees or TABLED pending receipt
of additional information. ...

IMPROVED TOURING

1. Classify the 1994-97 Volkswagen Golf
with the 1993 model year already classified.
(Monaghan) Tabled for review of the
Board of Directors decision on reclassifying
the 1993 Volkswagen Golf.

* * *

It seems that it should be possible to "take this off of the table" rather than making the request from scratch, right? There is a perception among some members that "the table" is a place where official requests go to die a death of neglect but what procedure is supposed to bring closure to a case like member Monaghan's? The request has been made and my search of FasTracks since shows up no evidence that it has been acted upon. Any ideas? Anyone want to look into this?

Thanks!

Kirk
 
You'll have to take it up with the BoD... It's been through the ITAC already, though only as of October 30th... (Letter IT 03-766)

With the Runoffs barely complete, and all the fallout from that, there may be a backup of these issues...

I'm sure it's being looked at by the appropriate parties...

DJ
 
Thanks, Darin - to clarify, that (a) IT 03-766 referes to the proposal to add the later years of Golf, and (B) that issue (not the reclassification of the '93) has already been reviewed by the ITAC? What was the ITAC recommendation?

K
 
I'm gonna hi-jack this for one second:

To Bill (and anyone else who wants to respond):

Let's say the Humpmobile JR20 is out for member comment to move from ITA to ITB. 10 letters in total come in, 5 for and 5 against. What is YOUR next receommendation as a theoretical member of the ITAC?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
200_06_checkered.jpg
 
In theory, as a hypothetical member of the ITAC, I believe that my task would be to represent my constituency (but I, as an actual non-ITAC member, I personally am not certain whether that would be IT racers from my home region, or perhaps those running equipment with which I am most familiar?).

Thus, if some letters are for and some against, I would consider at least a two-step process to determine my official position on the issue.

First, I would attempt to determine if each position is (equally?) valid and supportable in the sense that it does not directly conflict with the more general rules, and is at least intended to improve the status quo.

Second, I would attempt to determine the preferred position of all my constituents on this issue (the more prolific letter writers don't necessarily represent the majority view, and in general, those already entrenched in a class/vehicle will be able to put together more vocal opposition to newcomers than the support that the newcomers can initially muster).

Finally, I'd try to apply logic based on the results of the first two steps (and attempting to set personal feelings aside for the overall good of the club).

Hmmm, sounds complicated... Luckily I'm not a real ITAC member
wink.gif
 
***Posted by Andy***

***Let's say the Humpmobile JR20 is out for member comment to move from ITA to ITB. 10 letters in total come in, 5 for and 5 against. What is YOUR next receommendation as a theoretical member of the ITAC?***

Let's presume there are 100 Humpmobile JR20's. The comment that is out there in Fastrack will have an impact on all 100 of the Humpmobiles. & lets say this 10% is the typical response to comment requests in Fastrack.

If I were on the ITAC I would say to my ITAC peers:

A. Why are only 10% of the Humpmobile owners responding.

B. Lets brainstorm why minimal members respond to CB requests for fedback in Fastrack.

From my reading Fastrack & discussing requested issue feedback with members since 1996 when I joined SCCA I would suggest that the CB CREDITIBILITY is questionable. & before the FLAMES start please read who/how the rules are to be implemented. An example would be when somone requested a car be classed & one of the typical three or four NO responses is used. Not enough interest.

Have Fun
wink.gif

David




[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited November 20, 2003).]
 
Andy,

It's not really a fair question, as you say nothing as to how well presented/supported each person's position was. So, taking it at face value, and giving the benefit of the doubt that both sides were equally well defended and supported. My position would be that it would, at the very least, require additional research. I hardly feel that 10 responses, especially if they are equally split and equally logical, rational, and well supported, would warrant a change that would impact the current status quo in ITB.

On another note, I'm genuinely interested in the thought process that the ITAC went through in makings is reccomendation in favor of the move of the A3 Golf from ITA to ITB. If you don't want to discuss it in an open forum, I can understand that. I would appreciate an email though.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
I've mentioned this elsewhere here but I don't see the role of the ITAC as taking the responisbility of actually making decisions away from the comp board. It SHOULD do things that it is more effectively equipped to do, like understand the real-world technical implications and potential unintended consequences of proposed rules changes (a la bigger wheels for example).

It's already too possible for the ITAC to be an excuse for not making decisions that might be politically difficult and the CB should take all of the risk and reward for decisions that have to consider the broad interests of the club.

In this particular case, the ITAC should be well-positioned to comment on the likely competitiveness of the Golf in question, understanding how the rules might translate into practice. It should NOT worry over how many letters came in.

It MIGHT play a check-and-balance role in the current reality, acting as a set of eyes and ears with a little perspective on the CB but - in an ideal world - that would be a moot point: There would be accurate tracking and public reporting of "bills" that went before the board, documenting the rules request, evidence considered, rollcall vote, timeline, committee recommendations, and outcomes.

K
 
{ITAC hat OFF}

Kirk,

I would agree with your checks and balances 'need' - IF enough people even cared. This club is so weak when it comes to voting on issues. Did you see the Area votes tallies in the other thread? LAME. For all the bitching and moaning about how bad things are, there were so few people who voted - those poeple don't DESERVE a voice if they choose to waive their most basic right.

OK, deep breath. Phew.

Bill,

You make a great point about the QUALITY of the letters. Having said that, many people on this list went ape-sh*t when they heard about the quantity of no's to yes's. No issue with quality there, right? My problem with your conclusion is that, if both sides are equally represented, you go to the 10 vote quantity.

Tell me what that 10 votes means to you. A 'no action' is the same as voting it down because there would be no move.

Let me state this again (and I don't intend to drive Kirk to the bottle):

If the CB puts something out for member comment, ASSUME they are looking at implementation. I would hope they received a resounding 'no vote' to bag the idea.

To all: WHAT IS A RESOUNDING "NO VOTE"? a percentage? A total number of votes? The number of votes is SO DAMN LOW that I can't help but think the membership DOESN'T CARE.

Tell me why I should think otherwise. Please.

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
200_06_checkered.jpg
 
Andy,

My take on it is similar to what happens in the legal system. Something akin to 'beyond a reasonable doubt'. But that's my take. If the CB's take is that it's pretty much a done deal, unless they get a big NO vote, I guess that's the way it is. But, didn't the CB say the votes for CA's were pretty much split?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Bill,

I now understand how you get to your position. I am on the other side of the line.

The group that determines the rules for your club has a proposal on the table. That proposal receives just as many no's as it does' yes's. I feel it's then up the the group to decide what is best for the club.

As of right now, I would say the letters are about even and face to face (once the intent is explained better) is a resounding yes. IMHO, the scales are tipped to yes. Ultimately, as we all know, the CB makes the call - and I know some CB members are undecided as well.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
200_06_checkered.jpg
 
Andy,

I agree that it is part of the CB's responsibility to do what is best for the club. I guess I see a difference in where the proposal is initiated. If it's a member-initiated action, I see it as requiring a higher "burden of proof", for lack of a better term. If it's a CB-initiated action, I can see where there would be more of a requirement for disapproval to stop implementation.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
That question goes to one of my biggest concerns, Andy. There is no clear explanation of what may - and perhaps more importantly, may NOT - trigger the PCA process. Unless I missed something?

K
 
Andy,

I see PCA's as an ITAC initiated action. The CB initially put the idea of CA's out for member input at the direction of the BoD. IIRC, this was as a result of many requests for clarification of the classification process as well as many requests for adjustments.

From what I remember, the responses to CA's were pretty much split down the middle. Then we got the PCA proposal. I'm not really sure why we got the PCA proposal, except that it was an alternate to CA's. Seems to me, based on some of the above assumptions, the CB was ready to implement CA's in IT, and wanted input. The information that has been reported here and other places indicated that it was a pretty even split, for and against. So, since there wasn't the big NO, why didn't the CB just implement them?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Andy, thanks for your no response to my post within this thread. I will presume with your pick & choose attitude as to who/what you respond to on his site that you use the same decision process addressing issues which come before the ITAC.

David Dewhurst
CenDiv
SCCA # 250772
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

I see PCA's as an ITAC initiated action
Click to expand...

Well... maybe kinda-sort-of... but not really...

January/February 2003- Member letters were coming in, asking that something along the lines of CAs be implemented to "level the playing field"... The issue of CAs was put before the Membership for input by the CB. The response to this indicated that for the most part, the IT community did NOT want "traditional Production style competition adjustments", but would be in support of a scheme that used a "weight only" as a means of trying to "equate competition potential". I quote these because these are actual comments, or paraphrases thereof, from the letters we received...

Now, the letters for the intitial idea of CAs did come in at about a 50/50 split. However, many people here keep ignoring the data that I posted here that detailed the fact that even though there was about a 50% "against" vote, about 25% of those we "NO" BECAUSE they were against "Traditional Competition Adjustments", but they then went on to suggest an alternate system, usually something to do with weight.

Now, somewhere in this timeframe the ITAC had already been forming the idea that only weight would be used because we suspected that the IT community would not want or accept anything above and beyond this. PCAs are the result of this effort.

After going back to the CB, the ITAC asked that the intention of the initial "CA" input request be better clarrified so the membership would have a better understanding of what the intent was... that is, that we were NOT suggesting "traditional CAs"... The result is the Fastrack that announced PCAs...

So, while the ITAC authored PCAs, the action was spawned by membership input... In other words... this was ASKED for by many members writing in and requesting that this type of thing be done...

DJ



[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited November 21, 2003).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top