Insurance

Guys, I hate to tell you but I was provided a bunch of court documents that don't look all that good. They are supposed to be public record and I will be consulting an attorney to make sure I will suffer no damage for hosting them. They will be put up as soon as I get that information. If any of you attorney types want to save me a buck I will provide what I have to you. Matt is almost correct and stood corrected on the prodsite that the BOD can not disclose the settlement numbers of the case but the pretrial information is basicly open game and can be purchased online from the courts (the way it was explained to me) But I do have some of it. I will likely pay for all of it if need be.
 
Guys, I hate to tell you but I was provided a bunch of court documents that don't look all that good. .....Matt is almost correct and stood corrected on the prodsite that the BOD can not disclose the settlement numbers of the case but the pretrial information is basicly open game and can be purchased online from the courts (the way it was explained to me) But I do have some of it. I will likely pay for all of it if need be.
[/b]

"Pre-trial" ? Don't get two different issues confused. Yes...we're aware that the 'pre-trial' documents basically harpoon the Club management and governance at that time...which resulted in a settlement payment. Got that. We all know they screwed the pooch, but not the 'how', in detail. His most recent claims are of both civil and criminal misconduct (hope he knows the difference) by BOD members, and that the final settlement agreement was NOT covered by the NDA, contrary to what we've heard from the SCCA BOD. So....this issue isn't what happend pre-trial (yeah, they were idiots, got that), but rather "at & post-settlement".

Don't mix the issues. It's an important differentiation.

As to the costs...I thought Matt already had the documents. That's essentially what he's claimed. Why do you have to pay for it, if he already has access to the documents ? They're public records...they're not copyrighted...the costs are the electronic equivalence of Xerox fees, not 'rights fees'.
 
John, go easy dude, I am providing information not defending Matt. The information I have may already be old news to some but I can't tell you how many people I know that didn't even know this issue existed. I could care less about disclosure fron the current BOD and I would not want another day in court if they disclosed something that should not have been. I do concern myself with the fact that the club lost a fair amount of uninsured money and legal fees in this deal and the people responsible could run for the BOD again....It would be a shame for someone that makes the pisspoor choice that were made to get reelected cause a large portion of the voting block knows nothing of the facts. Again I have tried to direct these issues away from the IT site and have this information that can be covered with facts and idea shared at the site I started.
 
Joe - not trying to beat you up here. Sorry if you felt that way. But, unless the "pre" and "post" parts of this are differentiated, no one will be able to navigate the rhetoric.

I too am pissed that we (the royal we - aka "the Club") got walked into this buzz-saw (the Fran-Am one) by people who either should have known better, or should have had it explained to them at the time by competent counsel, or had it explained and still didn't 'get it'. I'd really like to know who those people are, too. I am fully licensed at lobbing rotten tomatoes, too...and have spent the last 20+ years as a corporate "bullshit detector", so "Skeptic" is my middle name.

But..again...don't merge the "before" and "after" into one set of behaviors. That'll just set up a string of "red herrings" (wiki that, too), which is what we've been treated to repeatedly in this thread.

Matt has made pretty strong allegations. Matt has long-standing credibility problems. How big a hook should we be expected to swallow, knowing what we know at this point ?
 
Can someone give me a semi-objective 5 second summary of the Fran-Am case? I know nothing about it.

Thanks guys.

Jeff
 
Yep...several years ago, I believe it was in SF region, but I might be wrong, there was an incident involving a Solo driver and a passenger in a "fun run". Both had on Snell and DOT helmets that were legal at the time. Short story...stuck throttle and low tree branch. This was well after the inclusion of Solo Safety Steward program that insured as safe a course as could be imagined. The following year, the helmet regulations were changed and the entry fees went up to compensate for the increased insurance fees due to the loss of life. To my knowledge, nothing nearly as severe has happened since.
[/b]
This will be my one and only post to this thread. Sorry Joe, I don't know how to followup to something here on your forum (and frankly I think you should have a thread on sccaforums or scca.com's forums rather than starting another site that won't have as much readership).

The event mentioned above was in southern CA, Cal Club Region, not San Francisco Region. I don't believe the helmet regulations actually changed as a result of that, but I could be wrong. Almost all (maybe all) of the videos you'll find of autocross accidents have happened at non-SCCA events.

On the topic of spectators: it's absolutely true that 99.9% of all Solo events are NON-spectator events. I refer you to sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the 2006 Solo Rulebook: http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/2006_solo_rules.pdf. My understanding is that the National office ceased approving spectator Solo events several years ago, although the provision for them still exists in the rulebook. Bottom line, all Solo events, including the National Championships, are non-spectator events, meaning that everyone has signed the waiver. A spectator event DOES pay a higher insurance premium, according to the rules. You might not see that on the rate sheet because they aren't approved any longer.

If someone does manage to walk onto the site without signing at an SCCA Solo event, then not only are they a trespasser, but the Solo Safety Steward at that event has failed in his duties (outlined in section 4.2 and 4.2.B of the Solo rules). Matt, since you're local to me and I know a lot of the local SFR Solo steering committee members, can you tell me when you did that? They'll want to hear about it.
 
This will be my one and only post to this thread. Sorry Joe, I don't know how to followup to something here on your forum (and frankly I think you should have a thread on sccaforums or scca.com's forums rather than starting another site that won't have as much readership).

[/b]

Thanks for the advice Josh, The fact is I started a site specifically to recruit people to run for National and local BODS. I feel that once the base group is in place the forum can be turned over to a committee of folks that will participate in that goal. My goal is also to point out specific reasons that some candidates shouldn’t be considered and some past BOD folks should never be elected again. The SCCA.com site has not been real friendly to that type of thing and scca forums has become fairly commercial in nature. SO if nothing happens on the site I started then I have wasted a little money and a little time and I learn a lesson. Plus I am learning how to write a stupid forum.

In response to somebody walking up to close and being a trespasser. It is ok to say that and you could press charges on them but the fact still remains that if they get hurt even trespassing there will likely be a lawsuit and the club will likely pay some money.

Joe
 
0021553.jpg
 
Geez Andy, you've really got a things coming out of one's butt.

To clarify a few points. First, there was no pre-trial or post trial documents because there was no trial. The documents I referred to were related to discovery and the depostition phase along with arguments to the numerous motions that are filed by both sides which make lawyers very happy and very rich in certain cases. I'll let Jeff explain that one. :D

Second, this case never came close to trial. They never even deposed the CRB members to whom the "fatal" message and smoking gun was delivered by Joanne Jensen. Most of these cases are settled on the courthouse steps just as a trial is going to start. This one shouldn't have even gotten to depostions and a settlement offer should have been made before spending millions on legal fees.

Third, it is true that the terms of the actual settlement are under NDA but there is absolutely nothing else that is which means the BoD is more than free to tell us what happend, who was involved and what the accusations were. They have clearly failed to do so and have claimed that they can't talk about the case. That is a bald faced lie.

Fourth, I will make these documents available if I can. I have made them available to Joe Harlan vis-a-vis my contact at Fran Am. My concern is legal. Unfortuanately my state believes that libel is a matter of intent to harm, not an issue of stating fact. In other words, even if it's true, you can't use it if your intent is considered committed in an act to harm... and use of such information with such intent is actionable. Trust me, I know this one well as I was sued last year for the exact same thing. I won but it cost me a bundle.

Last. Jeff. The case was pretty simple. It was also not the first one which a lot of people don't know as well. Regardless, in a nutshell, Fran Am went to SCCA with a homologation package for their Renault. The first big problem was that SCCA Eneterprises sent a guy over to Europe to try and steal the deal and cur Fran Am out. SCCA wanted the class but didn't want Fran Am. Renault said piss off, that's not honorable. The French... imagine that. So then Enterprises and the BoD who wanted a new formula spec car got one in FSCCA and Reynard. I believ they were the old Formula Ireland cars that they were trying to get rid of. So basically we were buying other people's garbage. Then comes the really sad part. Joanne Jensen was reported to have gone to the CRB and basically tell them you will reject the Fran Am homologation papers and you will accept the FSCCA applicaiton and make it a class.

Antitrust, restraint of trade...etc. There are a lot of other documents that illustrate not only a lack of respect for the law but a clear and decise decision to violate it. And Jeff, if you want to sign an NDA I'd be more than happy to send you the documents. As I read it, the SCCA BoD is a plantiff's dream.

The BoD acts in the same way with things like our insurance. They just do whatever they want. The only thing that's important is that they get one of their own elected or as the case has been for the past fifteen years, re-elected. For that, they need solo and the workers. Racers just can't compete against the numbers.
 
In response to somebody walking up to close and being a trespasser. It is ok to say that and you could press charges on them but the fact still remains that if they get hurt even trespassing there will likely be a lawsuit and the club will likely pay some money. [/b]
And if the safety steward has done his job per SCCA procedures it is not possible to walk up closely. If not, report the issue to steward on site and if he ignores it report the official to National/Risk Management. It's not something that is taken lightly. Keep in mind if an official is acting contrary to SCCA procedures he opens himself up to personal liability.

Unfortuanately my state believes that libel is a matter of intent to harm, not an issue of stating fact. [/b]
You should move immediately. :o
 
It is ok to say that and you could press charges on them but the fact still remains that if they get hurt even trespassing there will likely be a lawsuit and the club will likely pay some money.

Matt, read what I responded to then think about it. These event are held in freakin parking lots....You will never have 100% control with out a fench and security gaurds. Enough of this for me an audit of the insurance is the only way to confirm how this deal is split up.
 
FAT LAZY TOO BROKE TO GO RACING OFFICIALS happy and respected.
[/b]

You should put this on your racing car. That way, if you are every upside on fire, the flaggers will know to leave you in the car and go grab the marshmallows.
 
***They didn't have any problem putting club racers in 29 degree ***

Come on Matt, which day was it 29* ? I was there for 12 days & there were NO 29* days. [/b]

But you gotta admit David it was damn cold a few mornings - even for a couple of WI boys like us !!!

Have a great holiday !! :114:
 
From the US weather Bureau...

« Previous Day Daily Summary for Topeka, Kansas, October 13, 2006 Next Day »

Actual Average Record
Min Temperature 26 °F / -3 °C 29 °F / -1 °C (1979)
 
From the US weather Bureau...

« Previous Day Daily Summary for Topeka, Kansas, October 13, 2006 Next Day »

Actual Average Record
Min Temperature 26 °F / -3 °C 29 °F / -1 °C (1979)
[/b]

Yep, record low temperature for that day this year. Of course you seem to be ignoring that it was a RECORD. Try looking at the average available from NOAA

...THE TOPEKA CLIMATE SUMMARY FOR OCTOBER 15 2006... CLIMATE NORMAL PERIOD 1971 TO 2000 CLIMATE RECORD PERIOD 1887 TO 2006

MAXIMUM Normal - 70
MINIMUM Normal - 45
AVERAGE Normal - 57

And if you look at those same values for Akron/Canton OH for the same day

MAXIMUM Normal - 62
MINIMUM Normal - 42
AVERAGE Normal - 52

Now the service only provides historical data for the previous three months so I had to compare weather on Oct 15th. I'll agree that Matt is right it was a record setting cold day on the 13th. But, in general Topeka is warmer than Mid-O is and only a fool would discredit an event based on an uncharacteristic stretch of weather.

And what does this have to do with insurance?

Oh and on the 15, the low in Mid-O was 30, Atlanta was 43, but Honlulu was 73 so I'm lobbying to move the runoffs there. What does everyone think the tow fund would be like? :D
 
moz-screenshot.jpg
I love this crap.

How to make numbers lie, LOL

Well, yup it DID get cold...but at 6 AM! By 10:30 it was nearing 50, and for most of the afternoon, it was 60.
Sheesh.

Thats always the trouble with Matt,..no numbers, or misleading numbers. yeah yeah yeah, he didn't SAY it was 29 ALL day....whatever.

Heres the REAL chart:
 
Guys, we are now arguing about TEMPERATURE. We have been reduced to this.....all part of the Greys' plan! [/b]
Foolish boy... It's not about the temperature, it's about the WIND!!! According to the chart, it peaked at 16 mph at 2:00 pm. Matt says it was blowing 40 mph. Obviously, the Greys have sabotaged the friggin' anemometer!
 
And what does this have to do with insurance?

[/b]

Nothing and it's just as important. The insurance "problem" sounds like two middle managers arguing over which department should for maintenance of the company washrooms. Whether Solo or Club Racing "pays" for the insurance is hubris. Resolving this issue will not make the SCCA a more effective organization an expense will have been moved from one pocket to another, and unfortunately both pockets are both elements of the same pair of pants.
 
I said it got down to 29 degrees. David Dewhurst said it never got close. He was wrong. And for the record it was actually colder once I checked the records as I had gone on infromation provided me by one of the competitors. Just making that point. B) And BTW, the mean temperature for that day was only one degree above the record low for the same time in Ohio... Kansas sucks.

As it impacts insurance? It doesn't. But it is just more fodder as to how the BoD rips off club racing. Why not move solo Nationals? Oh no. Can't do that! Keep solo happy and win the votes. Use club racing money to pay the welfare bitches insurance. Yup, I said it again. Welfare bitches. Welfare bitches. Welfare bitches... :D GET RID OF SOLO or make them pay for their own policy and administration. They way I figure it, club racing is $1 million in the black even with the Topeka expenses. But the club is losing money. That means club racing is paying over $1 million to support other departments. Keep paying them guys. When the money runs out who are you going to complain to?
 
Back
Top