ITAC News.

Just to make it clear -- while there were a lot of proposed rule changes on our agenda this month, none of them were initiated by the ITAC, they all came in through letters from the membership. As I said earlier to Tom, we discuss every rule change proposal that comes in.

If the proponents of these proposals want to also take the concepts to public forums, they are welcome to do so (as Tom did with the engine mounts.) If that happens, we ITAC members might involve ourselves in public discourse about the merits of the idea. And if we do that, we're doing it as club members and drivers and car builders, not as ITAC members.

That would be a very different idea from taking an idea that comes in from a member as a letter, and then the ITAC post to some forums about that to get member input. The member input process for the club is already laid out -- the advisory committees and the CRB can either ask for member input via Fastrack prior to actually making a rule change proposal, or the CRB can make a proposal and member input comes before the BOD approval phase.

Maybe someday the member input process could involve the internet instead of Fastrack publications and letters, but as of right now, that's the process.
 
Last edited:
Andy Bettencourt said:
Like what?
Click to expand...

OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.


Travis I thought you quit and joined a country club.
 
IPRESS said:
OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.
Click to expand...

Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.
 
IPRESS said:
And really.........You guys had your shot at running things, and did a nice job, but ya'll left, now some other bunch needs to have their chance,
Click to expand...

That "some other bunch" is still made up of many of the "old bunch", no pun intended. As I understand it one of the ITAC members has been on there for 15 years.....talk about a poster child for term limits.....

Committees in the SCCA need a couple of changes:

1. Term limits.
2. Committee members MUST be active participants in the racing the committee oversees.
 
Ditto.

We need to make a rule proposal in that regard. I'll do a letter request to the ITAC and see if I can get them to adopt it as a policy, but it really should be in the GCR or the Bylaws or whatever "controls" the committees.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the process although it was the flashpoint. My view from afar was that the CRB & the old ITAC had come to a point that working together was not an option. Seems Josh's committee has the luxury of getting a fresh start. No reflection on past committtee members or their stance. As I stated before, I had quite the unhappy moment with the CRB myself one time. I was probably on the wrong side, but that doesn't mean you guys were, most on here think you were right, I think it was a little inbetween.
 
IPRESS said:
I wasn't talking about the process although it was the flashpoint. My view from afar was that the CRB & the old ITAC had come to a point that working together was not an option. Seems Josh's committee has the luxury of getting a fresh start. No reflection on past committtee members or their stance. As I stated before, I had quite the unhappy moment with the CRB myself one time. I was probably on the wrong side, but that doesn't mean you guys were, most on here think you were right, I think it was a little inbetween.
Click to expand...

I appreciate you acknowledging that the "old ITAC" had a lot of support for what it was trying to do. Ultimately, I see what went down as a conflict between what we heard the majority of members asking for and what the CRB was willing to do. I dare say that those of us who left the committee came down on what we saw as the members' side. The CRB does its job at the behest of the Board - that handful of people we all elect. That allows them to chase pesky ad hoc committee members back into the shadows but it doe NOT make them member-proof.

Josh is a GREAT consensus builder and he's pragmatic about things - probably the right qualities to unstick the situation - but we're asking for trouble, I think, if we mistake a lack of apparent conflict between the ITAC and CRB as IT being 100% AOK.

K
 
Last edited:
IPRESS said:
They seem to have broken down the stalemate and have things starting to get better as far as civil CRB / ITAC stuff goes.
Click to expand...

Well that's a no-brainer. German-French relations improved too with the move of the government seat from Paris to Vichy.

"A running theme during all of the discussions above was about the philosophy of IT and its place in the whole club racing program, with input from our CRB liaisons, of course. We discussed who our members are, who we want our members to be, etc"

I.e. If the ITAC does exactly what the CRB wants, there is no conflict. I question the competence of the CRB to discuss ANYTHING related to the philosophy of IT, who races IT and what IT racers want. They may be experts in where they want IT to fit into the entire program, but that simply means that IT is going to get screwed to save the FUBAR situation they have made of National racing and the Runoffs.


IPRESS said:
The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through. Should be optimistic times for the internet IT crowd.
Click to expand...

Ummm, I see very little to nothing to suggest this. The mess of ITB weights/specifications has been kicked to the curb and the CRB has imposed a hare-brained, scattershot method of car classification/correction on the category.

The MR2 situation remains resolved incorrectly; there's an overdog in ITB; both situations are already hurting car counts in at least one series and the CRB has officially shut the door to corrections. Based on their interpretation of the rules, the MR2 weight issue is a closed issue.
 
Ron Earp said:
1. Term limits.
2. Committee members MUST be active participants in the racing the committee oversees.
Click to expand...

One more:

3. Committee members must recuse themselves from voting on an issue that would directly affect the IT class they race in with respect to competition within that class - i.e., mainly car classifications.

This would do a couple of things, keep the member honest and insure the ITAC is populated evenly from all IT classes so it doesn't get paralyzed on a particular class/vote.
 
Josh - this is what drives me nuts about our current situation. As more and more cars are classes using the new measuring stick, the previously classed cars are going to suffer more and more.

currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.
Click to expand...

This needs to be addressed for all IT classes and a push needs to come from the ITAC, and the BOD hopefully will step in. The good news is that IT is not the only category experiencing issues in how things are being handled by the CRB. Nice, real nice.
 
Ron Earp said:
One more:

3. Committee members must recuse themselves from voting on an issue that would directly affect the IT class they race in with respect to competition within that class - i.e., mainly car classifications.

This would do a couple of things, keep the member honest and insure the ITAC is populated evenly from all IT classes so it doesn't get paralyzed on a particular class/vote.
Click to expand...

You mean both ITAC and CRB members of course, but particularly the latter - I hope. Right now, the default in the CRB is that members pretty much manage decisions in the categories they understand. That means a really huge concentration of power on a couple of people.

Looking back, my greatest "Oh, crap" realization - stoopid after 20+ years doing this - was that the CRB does NOT make decisions as a body, where category-specific issues are concerned. At least not in the way I pictured in my naiave little head...

K
 
I like the CRB guys, but I do not have a clear picture as to how their decisions are made either. I assume it is a vote, but I also get the feeling (possibly wrong) that the liasion to a particular committee really can set the tone for the vote (meaning influence it).
 
JeffYoung said:
I like the CRB guys, but I do not have a clear picture as to how their decisions are made either. I assume it is a vote, but I also get the feeling (possibly wrong) that the liasion to a particular committee really can set the tone for the vote (meaning influence it).
Click to expand...


I was like Kirk. When the ITAC gets something, we'd debate it as a committee. Certain things I knew little of I just went with the 'expert'. In hindsight, I wish I had been more mercurial about that. However the now lost (I assume) "confidence vote" aspect of the Process was an awesome response to that issue. I assumed the CRB did the same thing, in that the whole committee hears the case and the recommendation and votes. When I was told that a CRB member was completely unfamiliar with the Process...which had been in use for years, it dawned on me that things were far from what I had assumed.

It became clear that the ITAC had developed practices and procedures that were of a higher standard than the CrB was using, and was comfortable with. That's sad.
 
I just sent a letter regarding a proposed rules change from the May fastrack and in doing so I noticed that almost the entire ITAC is based in the Southeast, Josh being the exception way out in Cali.

should we not have an ITAC member from every regional championship / division? NARRC / MARRS / SARRC / etc?
 
Chip42 said:
I just sent a letter regarding a proposed rules change from the May fastrack and in doing so I noticed that almost the entire ITAC is based in the Southeast, Josh being the exception way out in Cali.

should we not have an ITAC member from every regional championship / division? NARRC / MARRS / SARRC / etc?
Click to expand...

We have Gary Semerdjian from SoCal as well as me (from NorCal).

Your proposal would be great, but just like the idea of term limits, these things only work if there are enough interested parties to fill the slots. We don't get very many resumes, we definitely don't get one from each location.
 
ITAC meeting 5/24/10

The next ITAC meeting is coming up Monday, May 24, 2010.

The agenda covers:
3 topics on the IT Prep allowances (update/backdate, ABS, and crank-triggered ignition systems)
3 new listing requests
2 spec lines - data errors
12 spec lines - weight adjustments or reclass requests

I don't think it will be possible to get through all of these, but I hope we make good progress! I will summarize the results later next week and as always, please contact me directly if you have anything you'd like to discuss in more detail.
 
Last edited:
that is alot, hopefully some of it is cut and dry errors. Intereted in why crank trigger systems is even for discussion is beyond me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top