Links in the chain...

lateapex911

lateapex911

Super Moderator
As many of you know, I volunteer for the club on the ITAC. And you also probably know that I'm pushing for a new ECU rule.

That has made me think long and hard about rules writing, and how it should be done, and how it actually is happening, in the context of the bigger picture. Or, how the writers are reacting to the racing climate.

The result of that is some research, and what seems to be a break in the chain. I'm not sure if it's actually a break, or more of a lost link...one that, due to the growth of the system, has been forgotten about.

So I have brought it up officially to the ITAC, and obsensibly, to the bigger view including the CRB. It affects us possibly more heavily, as we are regional, and national categories get closer attention.

Here's an excerpt of my letter, (and it might help if you keep in mind that the context is aimed at the ITAC/CRB) picking up after the usual introductory stuff, and a discussion of the basic premise of the big book......

Thats the very premise our rules are based on. "Only THESE modifications are permitted..." Which is to say, as we all know, If It Doesn't Say You Can, You Can't. (IIDSYCYC)

So when we list things in a rule that you CAN"T do, people tend to say, "OK, well they said that we can't mess with XXX in the Famziller device, but they didn't say we couldn't mess with ZZZ and YY, so we're good to go!" Well, no, that's not the case, but by disallowing specifics, the opening is insinuated.

Stay with me here....

Now, thats really not the end of the world, and it would be fine if the protest system was better.

But it's not. Protests are very rare, due to a slew of reasons, most falling beyond the scope of ITAC influence.

And when they DO occur, the Stewards can rule in condradictory ways. How would two seperate protests result on the new traction bar issue in two different regions?? Probably differently. And thats a problem, LOL. ..

Because.....

It's unlikely that they'll see the Appeals Court....

(Again, bigger issues at play there, )

BUT, if one DID see the Appeals Court, and it was ruled on, so what? How will the result help? I see no formal system for taking appeals decisions and making them binding.

My understanding is that once an appeal decision is rendered, the decision should be studied by the rulesmakers, and a decision needs to be made.: Is the rule clearly written? Does the intent equate? Is there an unseen loophole? Does it need rewording?

My understanding is that appeals decisions are NOT binding from year to year, to allow for rule book rewriting.

But where I see the system breaking down is that there is no automatic method of protest and appeals review with the intent of rules modifications.

It seems to me that the ITAC should be aware of every protest, and every Court of Appeals ruling, and there should be a mandatory review of the situation.

If this were to occur, I feel we could be much more proactive about nipping things in the bud, before the genie is so far out of the bottle that it's impossible to go back.

How can we add an automatic review process?

Do protests get reported to National? If so, all IT related should be listed here, just like all letters get logged and listed. And the same should occur for all IT related Appeals activity.

Then each should be reviewed, discussed, and if needed, changed.

It's the link in our chain thats missing, and needed to close the circle. It would help us write better, more succinct rules, and it would help competitors feel more empowered to protest. If your protest has a chance at making things better, you are MUCH more likely to take the plunge.[/b]
Click to expand...

Now, this involves the "system", of which the ITAC is only part of. It may very well be that there IS a system in place, and heck, the ITAC might not be doing their job. But I don't see how thats the case. I think it SHOULD be our job, but I think there needs to be a clear policy, and then a procedure.

There are some bright policy and rule analysis posters here, as well as the average racer who doesn't see the inner workings so much. I'd like to get feedback on this.

It might go nowhere, or maybe it could help solve some issue. It might happen, but take forever, LOL...Who knows. But, the CRB is more open today to member input than ever, so I thought I'd float it out here.
 
Jake-

I might get in trouble but I will agree that their is a breakdown in protest proceedures...

As a competitor and as being involved in the stewards program I find it to be a huge issue that protests are not logged and kept in a "digital file" at least for Stewards and folks such as yourself on the ITAC, CRB, BOD, etc. to use as a resource to do their job better. Actually I feel to be a Steward, or a represenative/member on the ITAC, CRB, BOD, etc. then it should be a requirement to read and keep up to date with those files to ensure consitancy throughout the entire SCCA organization. I am unsure if names need to be mentioned in these "open" files, but it would also "keep in check" some stewards who would know that their decisions would be viewable to their peers. It would also allow for stewards to get feedback on the decisions being made.

I find it amaizing that our organizations allows a process that allows one SOM to rule completely different than another SOM simply because of two different interpretations and a lack of communications. Those rulings can have an effect that changes how one region/area compeates as compaired to another.

I also find it amaizing that as a member of several SOM's I had ZERO written resources to check past history to see how other Stewards within SCCA have ruled in the past, unless a competitor has decided to make an appeal, which is rare at best, unless the penalty or race is a "high profile" one. I will say though that when I have served on an SOM we have had the honor and ability to talk with several stewards that generally have a lot of past knowledge that are very educational and helpful. I feer what decisions would have been made a few times without having those stewards knowledge of the "history."

I will also say that while I think protests should be open to all SCCA Members I think maybe we should take things one step at a time...

Raymond "You cannot make the best disions without knowing the History" Blethen
 
If this were to occur, I feel we could be much more proactive about nipping things in the bud, before the genie is so far out of the bottle that it's impossible to go back.
[/b]
Click to expand...


10-minute misconduct for excessive metaphor.

While there needs to be a clear process for protest results and appeals rulings to be "noted & distrubuted" on an ongoing basis, just be careful about how you want to "link that chain". What you DON'T want is for the Court of Appeals to turn into a "rules-setting" body, due to their authority to review & revise SOM court rulings. "Rules setting" is a CRB job. Make sure the line doesn't get "fuzzy" between the two. There does need to be a process to "close the loop", but you have to be careful about the "who & how" of it.

And then we can run it up the flagpole of the bridge that we'll cross...if we ever get there.
 
Jake, my services, such as they are, as a lawyer and rules nerd, are always available.

I do not know how things work in Topeka but my perception is that there is absolutely no formal process in place of the type you describe. Local protests that are not appealed are just footnotes in drivers' records and have no effect on any protest in any other Region or even, for that matter, in the same Region. No one reviews local protests for rules implications. I don't even think that happens w/ COA decisions. Only when someone w/ influence or enough people scream is there any action. I do not think that it is feasible for every local protest to be studied. Or perhaps even advisable.

W/ apologies to those who don't need/want it, a little civics review.

In both state and federal systems there are legislatures that make the rules and courts that interpret them. Except in cases of Constitutional issues, the courts are always subject to the legislature changing the rules if they don't like the way the courts rule. So, the legislature generally is who decides what the rules will be.

Decisions from local courts are not usually precedential. E.g. here in Memphis we have 9 divisions of Circuit Court and the judges in each are not bound by decisions of others. Same in the federal system - we have 4 District judges and they are likewise not required to follow decisions of each other, although they are more apt to than the state judges. However, when you appeal to the State Court of Appeals or U.S. Court of Appeals, their reported decisions are precedential w/i the same jurisdiction. A decision in a case arising out of Memphis, e.g., appealed to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals is binding on all District Courts in the 6th Circuit, and that encompasses several states. From there you go to the Supreme Court and its decsions are binding on everyone. :026:

I propose that the SCCA be organized somewhat like the federal system:

1. Rules are made and amended as they are now by a legislative body, the CRB, and interpreted by "courts" - the SOM and COA.

2. Local protest outcomes would be archived and precedential in that Region. They could be examined by the Division and adopted as Division precedent if the Division thinks they correct. The CRB and class advisory committees would be perfectly free to monitor such decisions and make changes to the rules if necessary.

3. COA opinions should be archived, searchable, and precedential. There could be a final appeal to the CRB but I don't see that as necessary. [Sorry, John, but we have been discussing this for some time and how else are you going to do it? If the COA gets far afield all the CRB has to do is amend/clarify the rules to "correct" the COA's error. The COA would never be the ultimate rulemaker.]

From Topeka's point of view the problem w/ this, of course, is that it will take more people and recources to administer. Does this work for us?
 
What you DON'T want is for the Court of Appeals to turn into a "rules-setting" body, due to their authority to review & revise SOM court rulings. "Rules setting" is a CRB job. . [/b]
Click to expand...

Right...but part of my excessive metaphor was this:

Do protests get reported to National? If so, all IT related should be listed here, just like all letters get logged and listed. And the same should occur for all IT related Appeals activity.

Then each should be reviewed, discussed, and if needed, changed.

It's the link in our chain thats missing, and needed to close the circle. It would help us write better, more succinct rules, and it would help competitors feel more empowered to protest.[/b]
Click to expand...

I thought I was being clear that our (the ITAC/CRB) are the rulewriting bodies, but without the info from the Appeals Court we have little idea how the rules are being used, abused, and ruled on, and can therefor not be proactive in a timely manner.


Jake, my services, such as they are, as a lawyer and rules nerd, are always available.



I propose that the SCCA be organized somewhat like the federal system:

1. Rules are made and amended as they are now by a legislative body, the CRB, and interpreted by "courts" - the SOM and COA.

2. Local protest outcomes would be archived and precedential in that Region. They could be examined by the Division and adopted as Division precedent if the Division thinks they correct. The CRB and class advisory committees would be perfectly free to monitor such decisions and make changes to the rules if necessary.

3. COA opinions should be archived, searchable, and precedential. There could be a final appeal to the CRB but I don't see that as necessary. [Sorry, John, but we have been discussing this for some time and how else are you going to do it? If the COA gets far afield all the CRB has to do is amend/clarify the rules to "correct" the COA's error. The COA would never be the ultimate rulemaker.]

From Topeka's point of view the problem w/ this, of course, is that it will take more people and recources to administer. Does this work for us?
[/b]
Click to expand...

Bill, good suggestions all, but I'm not sure why the extra Regional/divisional layer. To me, it's a National ruleset, and the decisions about my Fremtershift valve modification should be the same here, or in Los Angeles.

I would like the IT related protests and COA activity added to our monthy ITAC workload for review, as a start.
 
Bill - you expressed it well. A+ to you, since you're in the 'legal wordsmithing' business. I think (?!?) my point is that there should be some dotted line between the COA and the CRB, over which the following conversations can occur:
(COA to CRB) "Just what the hell did you mean by that washer bottle language in the 2008 GCR ???"
(CRB to COA) "They must be filled with factory-issue washer fluid, consistant in color, specific gravity, aroma and flavor".
(COA to CRB) "OK. Gotcha. That Greg guy in NEDiv is screwed."

Now...we have options here...rather than the 'Strict Constructionist' view (what did the original rule-writers intend), maybe it's what the current CRB thinks the rule should be. Right now, I don't think the COA has enough information to make an educated ruling following either path.

Tangents...I'm going off on tangents. Maybe I'll mix some more metaphors. What's the 'pot life' on mixed metaphors ?
 
Jake-

Stuff that goes to the COA is published in Fast Track, you can easily access it with that resource... I believe what you want is SOM (Stewards of the Meet) rulings on protests.

Here is a bit of info based on my experiences:

- Generally I think you will see 2-3 SOM hearings a weekend. Most of them are protest appeals to CSA's (chief Stewards Action) or RFA's (Request For Action). CSA/RFA's are generally a result of X car being illigal (like underweight) or for improper driveing (hitting, passing under yellow, etc.).

- Most weekends you may see 1 or possibly 2 driver to driver protests. Generally they are a result of an on track incident. Very rarely (but at least once every few races) will you see a driver protest another driver for an illigal car.

So you do need to ask yourself the question... Will the ITAC gain anything from those 1 in 10 protests that actually have to do with the "class/car rules" - I think it could, but I do think that protests that you would be interested in are a lot more rare than you think.

All that aside, here is another interesting fact... Say someone after a protest were to recieve a slap on the wrist for being iligal for "X" and he/she did not take it any further nor did they fix it. Then they show up at the next event with the same illigality "X". He/she could then get protested again by completely different people infront of a completely different SOM. That SOM without having any prior knowledge to this persons refusal to make changes could give the exact same slap on the wrist, when personally I feel it deserves a bit more sever penalty as the first time it obviosly didn't teach a lesson. Same goes for driver history... I find it interesting that the current process makes your driving history, history. You actually have no history at all when you go infront of the SOM, everything in your past is suposed to be forgoten (unless of course you are on probation).

Raymond
 
Wow, I don't know if I can take much more if this thread - people with progressive ideas thinking rationally!

Seriously, I do believe that what is being proposed here is very well thought out, and would be good for the club. I agree that the legislative body (ITAC, CRB, BOD) needs to understand how the judicial branch (Stewards, COA) is interpreting/administering the rules. Jake, keep going, you're on the right track.

On the down side, I think that implementing this sort of review will be an uphill battle for us, with our 'regional only' status. We might have a better chance of getting some action by soliciting an alliance with one or more of the advisory committees for Production, GT, etc. It might also help to limit the gathering of information on protests to all technical protests, rather than all IT related protests. But then, who would do the sorting? Another can of worms! More work! I think I'll stop while I'm ahead. I still like the idea, and hope we find a way to make this work.
 
Bill, Just a thought but why couldn't the SOM do the sorting?? If they have a protest/ruling that is technical in nature (maybe even something as simpl as an underweight car), they could send it to the appropriate rule making body that would be interested in it. That way there is nothing in the way of on track protests that the ITAC, CRB, or COD would have to sort through. it should also work for Prod, GT, etc.


"Those that do not study history are bound to repeat it"
 
Bill, Just a thought but why couldn't the SOM do the sorting?? If they have a protest/ruling that is technical in nature (maybe even something as simpl as an underweight car), they could send it to the appropriate rule making body that would be interested in it. That way there is nothing in the way of on track protests that the ITAC, CRB, or COD would have to sort through. it should also work for Prod, GT, etc.
"Those that do not study history are bound to repeat it"
[/b]
Click to expand...

Works for me! Don't let the momentum stop! Let's hear some more ideas!
 
Bill, Just a thought but why couldn't the SOM do the sorting?? If they have a protest/ruling that is technical in nature (maybe even something as simpl as an underweight car), they could send it to the appropriate rule making body that would be interested in it. That way there is nothing in the way of on track protests that the ITAC, CRB, or COD would have to sort through. it should also work for Prod, GT, etc.
"Those that do not study history are bound to repeat it"
[/b]
Click to expand...

Even if the SOM does the sorting, how does it get to the right people, and who are the right people? It seems like it would be simple, and it could be, but unfortunatly I don't think it is simply because the technology doesn't exist across the country at every region and every track. If every region and every track had laptops, printers, scaners, and people who understood how to use them then protests could be done electronicaly, however currently everything is done in paper. Many times the paper doesn't cover the "entire story" and we all know that what is on paper is not as it always seems, so after all the work would we be getting the "right picture." Making this all work for the little information that you would get would be a lot of work as compaired to the current model that has worked for years.

Also to put another little snag in things....

1- A competitor who may have had a run in or two (more people than you think have had thier fair share, even people on this board) wouldn't be smart to support this idea of actually keeping a history for current viewing, as it would probably only hurt themselves... Its sometimes better to put things in the past, in the past.

2- Many people like the ability to have races/regions run with more local power. Uniting this information nationaly might decrease that power to run things how "locals" want it and it may stirr the pot even more than forums such as this one already does if ya know what I mean...

Raymond "Yes, I see the positives, and would support change, but I also see the monumental task and barriors to cross to be possible" Blethen
 
Every Monday after a race weekend fax the paperwork to the ITAC and/or Topeka. Put it in an old fashined paper file, review the new contents at every meeting, take action when appropriate at the end of the year if rule changes are determined to be required. This gets you halfway there.

Now - Topeka, scan them and host them in PDF format by class on the website (This is as easy as making photocopies today). Do this monthly, at the same time fastrack comes out, heck even if done annually this would be more than we have now. An event with internet access can easily review past precident whenever. An event without access can either print hardcopies and keep a binder for each class on hand, or remain in the stone ages (in which case the past precident setting events will still be available for use during any appeals).
 
"It seems to me that the ITAC should be aware of every protest,..."

Jake, that's why I inserted the Regional/Divisional layer. But it is indeed optional. However, don't you think rules interpretations IN A SINGLE REGION should be uniform? And do you want different allowances at different tracks? The Divisional option takes care of that. If we are going to set up a new info-sharing system, and include local protests in it, we might as well go all the way.

Thanks, John. As to the COA getting advice on meaning of rules from the CRB, and allowing the CRB to opine on how they think the rule shoud be NOW, keep in mind that the COA is a court and is reviewing some driver's conduct UNDER THE EXISTING RULES. To allow the CRB to change the rule ex post facto is horribly unfair to the driver. Thus, COA rulings have to be based on the rule as it was intended to be. Now, after that, when the CRB gets a look at it, it might decide that that outcome is not what we want any longer -and change the rule. Indeed, Congress sometimes amends statutes to in effect overrule court decisions.

Does any paperwork on unappealed local protests go to Topeka now? If so, that is the source of the info for the **AC/CRB. COA opinions are already in electronic format and could be archived, indexed, and searchable as pdfs or text documents. I'm sure there is software available for just such a system.

Yes, this would apply to the entire Club so all classes, Regions, and Divisions should be involved.

Ain't tilting at windmills fun?
 
Does any paperwork on unappealed local protests go to Topeka now? If so, that is the source of the info for the **AC/CRB.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Yes, all the detailed paperwork on every protest as well as a "review" of the event as a whole (good and bad) goes to Topeka, so the info is someplace!!!

Raymond
 
"It seems to me that the ITAC should be aware of every protest,..."

Jake, that's why I inserted the Regional/Divisional layer. But it is indeed optional. However, don't you think rules interpretations IN A SINGLE REGION should be uniform? And do you want different allowances at different tracks? The Divisional option takes care of that. If we are going to set up a new info-sharing system, and include local protests in it, we might as well go all the way.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Oh, I think it should be uniform across the country! I want whats legal in Atlanta, for example, to be legal at Watkins Glen, or vice versa. So I took the Divisional aspect as being troublesome.

Ain't tilting at windmills fun?
[/b]
Click to expand...

I've seen a lot of windmills turn in the past few years...I know it can happen. This one will too. No worries about that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top