another IT7 tire question

[papabear]

I hate to ask again, but with the upcoming IT races I would like to know. Is there anywhere that I can read the IT7 tire rules? My understanding is that Toyo's must be ran in all Sarrc and ECR events. Can Hoosiers be ran in IT races? What decision was ever reached on rain tires? I remember the first race at RA it was stated that you could run any rain tire in SARRC, and some competitors had a letter staing that, I later heard that was not true. I would like to read the rules before traveling to RA or any further races.

1. must TOYOS be ran in all IT7 races? SARRC, ECR, CCPS and what about the ARRC
2. what rain tires if any are allowed? dirt stockers, hoosier rains or full tread toyos
3. does the CCPS follow the same rules as SARRC?
4. does a IT7 car have a chance in ITA?

Thanks for any help you can give me.

[murphyd]

Carolina Cup Pro Series follows the SEDiv IT7 rules requiring the spec tire!

[tom_sprecher]

Try this

SEDiv Rules (http://www.sedivracing.org/2006SEDivRegionalClassRules.pdf)

I think IT7 rules are on page 3.

To answer your question to the best of my knowledge goes like this.

1. SARRC, ECR, CCPS yes. ARRC no.
2. Toyo RA1, shaved or not, Hoosier Dirt Stocker. That's it!
3. As far as the tire goes, yes.
4. Not usually.

Hope this helps. Where you located?

[crushed]

The Atlanta Region PRO-it series allows Hoosiers for IT-7

[it7rx739]

The SARRC It-7 class is regulated with a spec toyo RA-1 . The ECR is spec tire as well. The Pro-It-7 is anthing goes. As far as rain tires are concerned, anything goes. Easy fix....go from the 7 class to ita!!!

[Toni]

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

[apexingsupra]

And remember it is the REs who vote on this so if it matters to you then contact your RE and tell them which way you want them to vote and why.

Barry Hair
Ala. Region RE.

[racerpepe]

in responce to Toni Creighton. i would support a FULL VOTE OF (ALL) IT-7 drivers on the spec tire rule .
This is the way it was passed originally by a 5 to 1 margin for a spec tire with i believe 79 of the roughly
108 ballots complete with self addresed stamped envelopes were returned again by a 5 to 1 margin.
Lee Graser can be contacted for specifics. any effort to circumvent another FULL VOTE would be demining to those it-7 drivers who filled out their ballots believing that their vote actually counted. to send the message that they and there vote do not count and only those that happen across this informal pole are the
drivers that get to make the rules that ALL drivers have to follow is a insult. i have said before and it bares
repeating that i will run 1 rotor with donut spares for tires if and only if that is what the majority of ALL IT-7 DRIVERS WANT. not the select few who win free tires or have tire deals or can afford to out spend there fellow drivers or happen to be privy to a web page.PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do not treat myself and my fellow drivers with such disrespect as to say that we don't matter to you or to it-7. i have always raced it-7
and the best thing beside my fellow drivers has always been that every driver matters and that all of the drivers get to vote for or against an issue not just a select few. all of the drivers names and addresses are available to vote on this issue again at anytime. any other effort to circumvent or change the way this has already been done can only be construed as a personal insult to every it-7 driver wether they are for or against a spec tire. i can see no reason not to give (ALL DRIVERS) a vote. i look forward to recieving my ballot in the mail i will even use my own stamp on this one. thank you for listening to all drivers.

[jvarble]

look under general disscusions, toni creighton has broken down the process as to how the procedure's for rule changes to take place.
should any of you want to talk about the spec tire rule, or any other proposed changes to do with IT/7 you can contact:

chair for IT/7 advisory group: sam henderson [email protected]

stan hines [email protected]

alex jackson [email protected]

lee grasier [email protected]

joe varble [email protected]

[Toni]

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

[sgallimo]

Toni, thanks for the insite into the rules making process. However, your responses failed to answer the fundamental question being asked: why are you soliciting opinions informally via a forum instead of using a written vote as was required last year?

Scott Gallimore
worker, nat comp license, IT-7 driver,
North Carolina Region Board of Directors, Member at Large

[Toni]

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

Seems like the rules should be carried forward from the previous year in a class like this unless a recommendation from the local IT7 Advisory Board asks for a change (presumable based on member input) or a petition comes in from drivers asking for something they feel is not being properly represented by the Ad-Hoc.

It would seem like a rubber-stamp go from the previous year. In no way should the RE's proactively change the rules of a driver-created and organized psudo-spec class.

AB

[gprodracer]

Toni,

I have met and spoken with you numerous times since I started w/ the SCCA in '85. You probably don't know me from Adam, as you meet thousands of people each year. I just want you to know that there are thousands of us who know you, and Jim, who are aware of the millions of hours of service that you 2 have given our club over your many years of service to us. We can't / don't ever fully express our gratitude for all you two have done :happy204: .... With that in mind, please forgive all who comment here with anything negative about the current rules in our club, and / or how it affects them.... Lots of people (myself included) are just now becoming aware of the electronic media, and are attempting to let their feelings be known. You are doing everything in your power to let the drivers know what is going on, and the process that they need to follow to get things changed... it's just that some of them just became aware of it, and are frustrated that they can't change things NOW!!!

You shouldn't have to, but please forgive the "technologically challenged" people out there...I'm sure they meant no disrespect... (if they did, I'll be more than happy to deal with that on your behalf!!!) :018:
Thank you for all you do!!!!!!
There are people out here that notice! :D
Respectfully,
Mark P. Larson
CFR #164010

[Toni]

Thanks Mark,

I'm trying to be as public and above board as possible so that the final vote by the REs is understandable by all. It is a long and tedious process. This is a public as I know how to make it. I don't need to be part of our long history of behind closed doors agreements.

Thanks for your kind words.

Toni

[sgallimo]

How do you describe an attitude like that Toni?? You initiate something in a manner contrary to what was required previously and then get indignant when people point out that ways in which your approach may not be fair. And then you play the "I'm a volunteer and you people are too lazy to do it yourself so I had to do something" card. Amazing, simply amazing.

I'll address your points individually:

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.

There is a person listed on the SEDIV website that could probably have helped with the process. He is the SARRC Points Keeper - I suspect that you two have met. The SEDIV website has a list of all of the people that participated in IT-7 last year (ditto for this year). The framers of the IT-7 spec tire rule were able to compile and use a list of drivers. I suspect that one of those folks would have been glad to let you know how they managed to compile a list without sleeping with the keeper of the permanent number information (not that I see how the permanent number info is pertinent to the conversation). If you don't have the time or the resources to perform an optional task then perhaps you should wait to perform that task until you do have those resources and or time.

2) I didn’t have the desire to address that many envelops.

Then perform the poll in an electronic manner or ask for help.

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.).

Since it is a division expense, why would you personally have to cover it? Regardless, you could have conducted the poll in an electronic manner. The problem lies not in your decision to use electronic means instead of tradition mail. The problem lies in the fact that your approach did not receive the coverage that was required in the previous poll.

4) Your advisory board could have done this again, but didn’t,

If you have a problem with the advisory board, I suggest you take it up with them.

5) The REs will make their decision one way or the other on July 29,

You've mentioned this several times and you are correct. But would they have specifically addressed the IT-7 spec tire issue without the effort that you initiated? If not, then your point has no merit.

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,

If you can't do it correctly and fairly, then don't do it until you can.

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,

There have been numerous posts to the two threads that you started which indicated that a lot of folks did not know that you were gathering opinions. I've asked this before, how can you compare an obscure post on an unofficial forum to a direct vote of the driving community??

8) The REs make the decision with or without input,

They absolutely will. But why would they change something without prompting? I would like for them to make their decisions based on valid and complete input (just as they did last time). If you can't provide that, then you should have left it alone until you could do so.

9) I chose to assist the committees gather information because no one else had begun the process,

The process was begun and was completed. That's why it is part of the current rules.

10) Electronically was quick and easy and I didn’t have to spend my own money to offer to take your opinion,

There is nothing wrong with the electronic approach as long as you take the time and the responsibility to gather complete, factual information.

11) if you had wanted the process to have been completed in a different way you should have started it for yourself.

The IT-7 driving community apparently wanted it completed in a different way because some of their number went to the DA of Tech, followed the indicated process, created a ballot, created a list of voters, distributed the ballots, collected the results, and presented them to the proper officials. As indicated previously, the community voted 5 to 1 for the spec tire.

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.

"Your way or the highway" is not an appropriate philosophy for any office in this club, appointed or otherwise. It is important for us to remember that you are a volunteer but it is equally important for you to remember that you volunteered to do a particular job.

Reason # 999) You have so much fun griping and complaining electronically that I though you would prefer to give your opinion again electronically.

Perform the task fairly and completely and the complaints won't matter.

---------------------------------

The fact that the RE's will vote on July 29th with or without driver input has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether your approach is fair and valid. If you have complaints about the way the Class Review Board and the Advisory Boards have been taking care of business, address it with them and stop mucking around with the rules that our membership voted on -- unless you are willing to gather information from everyone.

We are all glad that you are attempting to assist the various committees. We just want you to do it fairly. If you can't do that because you don't have time or because your approach is flawed, then don't do it. The current IT-7 rules are working and can easily stand as they are until the IT-7 membership, not the handful of front-runners, decide, as a group, that they want them changed.

The membership was contacted previously and their responses tallied. There is absolutely no valid reason that that can't be done again before any rules changes are proposed to anyone.

You said, "You didn’t take the initiative now you want to complain about the way I did it". You need to remember that the membership did take the initiative. We put together a ballot and voted. The only reason we are complaining is because you are trying to negate that very initiative that you say we should take.

I don't know if you're interested in the 2005 drivers or the 2006 drivers but a quick glance at the Points Section of the SEDIV website shows 43 names in the IT-7 SARRC group and an additional 7 unique names in the IT-7 ECR group so far this year. The site also shows 65 names in the IT-7 SARRC group and an additional 17 unique names in the IT-7 ECR group for 2005. Now if you're prepared to demonstrate that your approach has garnered "opinions" of a similar percentage of the folks that the previous vote reached (ie, number of ballots returned versus number of active drivers), then I'll gladly remove my objections.

Thanks,
Scott Gallimore
paying member of this club and fellow volunteer.

[Toni]

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

Somebody needs to start from scratch on this. If the IT7 Ad-hoc guys can't see there are about 3 different problems then they need more input.

1. Ricky. If there are more opinions like Ricky's, then those guys need to mobilize and get more tires on the ballot.

2. In today's SCCA, when you say 'spec tire', it is probably gonna be the Toyo. It ain't the fastest but it sure as heck lasts a long time and is a good tire - to me great qualities for a spec tire.

3. The IT7 Ad-hoc needs to get this train under control. Get a proper ballot - to all the drivers (anyone who ran ONE or more events - because they could have run more if they like the rules) and put a rule into effect for 2-3 years and live with it. Give the decision some time to either run guys out who don't like it or attract new drivers based on it's popularity. After that time period, either do the entire formal process again or put in the rules that it will get rubber stamped unless there is a motion to re-vote by the members (or Ad-hoc on their behalf)

4. Don't do this stuff half-ass-ed. You either take it on and do it right (and not do it again if it sucks or costs you money) or don't do it at all. The Ad-Hoc is there for a reason. Put it on them. That is what they volunteer for - to be the voice of the drivers. If they are ineffective, vote in new guys.

Use all the mediums for info as you can. All the divisions in the SeDiv presumably have monthly publications. Put a notice of the ballot - or put the dang ballot in each publication.

The RE's may be just rubber stamping this for 2007 (as they should be with no additional member input - or formal complaints) but the perception created here is that the rules could change in any way without anyone knowing why, how or when. Toni - you have created a monster here and you need to fix it - do it through the Ad-Hoc. Tell them the goal of the vote and ask them if THEIR drivers have any input.

Drivers - if your Ad-hoc guy doesn't know your thoughts - shame on you.

AB (not in SeDiv but the principals apply)
SMAC
ITAC
NER BoD
STAC
etc.

[steve s]

well said andy.!!!!! i agree with you 100%.

[Toni]

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

[lateapex911]

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]

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.

[edweiner]

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

[gprodracer]

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

[lateapex911]

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.

[happyjap]

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

[tom_sprecher]

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]

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?

[sgallimo]

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.

[gprodracer]

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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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]

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

[gprodracer]

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 Bettencourt]

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]

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.

[sgallimo]

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.

[gprodracer]

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.[quote]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.[quote]
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

[Andy Bettencourt]

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]

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 (http://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]

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]

[gprodracer]

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

[chumpy36]

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

[gprodracer]

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

[chumpy36]

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

[tom_sprecher]

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?

[lateapex911]

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]

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.

[Toni]

Jason, thank you for you vote of confidence – on both sites.

As I told you when I asked you to be part of the SM advisory group, the rules are reviewed every year. Some years it has been done more privately than others. I choose to do things openly and with as much racer input as possible.

When this landed in my lap at the beginning of June, nothing, in any of the classes, had been begun. Some classes, like SM, where you are part of the advisory group, didn’t even have an advisory group. Those have been formed. All of the class rules have been reviewed by people who race in that class. The opinions from the advisory groups have been sent to the Class Review Board, the chiefs of tech for the racing regions. I have most of the opinions from them. All of the rules have been reviewed by the chief of tech in the racing regions. All of the rules will be reviewed by the REs. I am currently finalizing all of the class rules review material for the REs. It will be sent to them through their agenda process by the end of the week, well before their deadline.

Last year the decision to use the same tire for SM regional racing as for national racing was made by the REs at the mid year meeting without any input from racers, advisory boards, or the Class Review Board. This year there is an advisory group from the SM community and they, including you, gave input based on your own opinion as well as opinions from others. I’m sure all of you gave an opinion that you thought was the best for the class, not just your personal opinion. You have the unique position of being part of that other group and bring perspective from those who cross over into SCCA racing as well. I’m sorry that your opinion wasn’t in the majority opinion from the SM advisory group. But it is very rare that a committee will be in complete agreement.

Last year two of the members of the IT7 advisory committee took it upon themselves to request a spec tire for the class where there had been none before. They made an opinion poll. Some of the racers were missed with the poll. Some of the racers were contacted with the poll. Some of the racers responded to the poll. I have been unable to find any evidence that this proposal was given to the Class Review Board before it was presented to the REs by those members of the committee and the previous DA. I’m not saying that they did anything wrong. It seems that they may have bypassed a step. It is evident from the comments here and the phone calls and emails that I have had and that the advisory committee has had, that there was a population of IT7 racers that wanted to have the tire issue looked at again. The advisory committee, with input from this site and directly from the racers has done exactly that. The CRB has given their opinion. And the material will be presented to the REs for their meeting next week.

I didn’t have to come here or to the SM site and ask for opinion. But I did. From the volume of opinion that has been presented, and is still being presented weeks later, it seems evident to me that the rules needed to be reviewed, openly. If they are changed so be it. If they are not changed so be it. I have caused them to be looked at by the advisory groups with input from racers. I have presented the opinions to the Class Review Board. I have gathered opinions from the CRB. I will present the material to the REs. All this is so that you can go racing with a set of rules that will be stable for the next season.

I didn’t have to do this. I didn’t have to take the assignment. What ever actions I have done have been more transparent than any would have been with almost anyone else. The collective you now knows what is going on, what the process it, and how to affect change or keep status quo. You have every opportunity to have the next executive steward to appoint you as DA of tech for 2007 and complete the task better than I have this year.

Toni

PS you're welcome

[Andy Bettencourt]

PS you're welcome

[/b] If you are in this for the Thank-You's, you are in the wrong position, trust me on that one.

We have debated here on how the message hit the airwaves, it's effectiveness, and the ramifications. No need to beat that horse.

I just wonder why Toni even needs to be the messenger? Where is the Ad-Hoc? It really is their resonsibility to have a finger on the pulse - and be in contact with the RE's. They should know when the annual meetings are and should be prepared with the data to make a recommendation. They are the ones that should be soliciting the input and collection the opinions. If they are, there is some serious mis-communication going on.

I think this issue could be critical to the survival of IT7. With the new weights for the 12A in ITA, it has become a very strong option.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Toni,

You collected some info. What does that info say to date?

[lateapex911]

J.... The collective you now knows what is going on, what the process it, and how to affect change or keep status quo...

Toni

PS you're welcome
[/b]

Keep in mind that this comment comes from someone (me) not directly involved in the process....

If I am one of the "collective yous", then actually I don't know whats going on. I am reading that information was collected from several fronts.

I don't know:
The form of questioning from all the fronts
The responses from the questioning
Who responded
The final determination.

In short, the fact that there is opinion gathering being done has been brought up, but the methods and results are unknown.

In the past, it appears that there was a formal survey, and while some have debated it's appropriateness, it was at least complete, consistant, and well responded to, with a clear result. It also appears that most assumed that there would be no change going forward.

Now it appears there might be a change based on some opinion gathering, or maybe not. It's up to the REs.

Or am i missing something?

[Toni]

not missing anything

The final determination is always made by the REs - every year. This year they have the information gathered from the Class Review Board and the advisory boards with input from the racers. It is not just the IT7 class. It is all of the SEDiv Regional classes. They will make the decision with the information they have or don't have. There is some discussion in SM. All the other classes are peaceful. Even the class that has 14 pages of rules is peaceful. IT7 has a one sentance rule that people want to discuss, again and again.

In the whole process the only major compalints are here with IT7. Those who want the spec tire vs those who don't vs those who were left out of the poll last year vs those who felt that the racer opinion last year was the final deciding factor forevermore vs anyone who brings up the subject. This is a vocal group that takes time away from car prep to be on the computer.

Should I be foolish enough to take this job in 2007, the process will begin much earlier in the year with the committees doing most of the work as they have in the other classes. And this IT7 committee has done a great deal of work gathering information. Some of them have discussed it here in several threads. It was a different way than last year. It involved the telephone and computers. It may be a different way next year. That's to be determined.

Your division has regional class rules. Some of your regions have region specific classes. How does your division work to agree upon those classes. How do your regions work together on issues? There is a process. How many of your racers understand the process? This division's processes were not completely understood by the racres. Racers deal with racing. The politicians deal with the rules of racing. Sometimes these groups should talk to each other.

Toni

[lateapex911]

not missing anything

........, the process will begin much earlier in the year with the committees doing most of the work .......
[/b]

Agreed! The Class reps really need to have a clear and well researched class "position" to present the higher ups. It makes the most sense for it to be in an accountable form, such as polls, as opposed to private discussions.



. Racers deal with racing. The politicians deal with the rules of racing. Sometimes these groups should talk to each other.

Toni
[/b]

Agreed...I have a saying, kinda, LOL: More racers should work, and more workers should race.

Impossible, of course, but you have to walk a mile in the other guys shoes to see what he sees....

[sgallimo]

Toni,

You're right that last year two of the members of the IT-7 advisory committee took it upon themselves to request a spec tire for the class where there had been none before. You left out a very important piece of information. You neglected to mention that they did so only after talking to a LOT of their IT-7 competitors. I think everyone will agree that that is in line with the job that they signed up for. You also failed to acknowledge that the vast majority of their fellow drivers agreed with them about the spec tire - as indicated by the results of the previous ballot.

That whole process was exactly like that which took place when the DRIVERS got together a few years ago, decided that THEY wanted a regional class to race in, and worked very, very hard to get the class created. The DRIVERS took the initiative and made it happen. The DRIVERS did the same thing with the spec tire rule last year. The IT-7 class exists because of the effort of the DRIVERS. The same can be said for the IT-7 spec tire rule.

You've made numerous references to the openness of things now that you've taken over the reins. This serves to cast a shadow on what was done before. The previous ballot involved a concentrated effort to identify and contact all of the then current drivers. You've seen the numbers from that ballot. Are you in a position to show that your effort actually reached an equivalent number of the community? How many people sent you an opinion? How many were for the current spec tire rule, how many against? How many of the people that contacted you are current IT-7 drivers? Was there any effort made to identify them as such?

You've made numerous thinly veiled disparaging comments about the previous ballot. Are you in a position to show us how many people were not reached in the previous ballot? Please don't deflect the question with comments about not exposing people's personal information. After all, driver's names and member numbers continually appear on the result pages of the SEDIV website, regions publish and distribute membership directories, driver's names appear in the results printed in SportsCar, etc. Stop the secrecy and eliminate the confusion by simply telling us how many people have claimed that they were missed by the previous ballot?

You've made numerous references to the volume of complaints and comments that have been received. Again, stop the secrecy and eliminate the confusion by simply telling us how many people had complained about the current spec tire rule?

Yes, you received input that some of the drivers wanted the spec tire rule changed. That should have lead you to the conclusion that another ballot was needed not to the conclusion that the rule needed to be changed. Have you received sufficient input to indicate that the spec tire question needed to go before the drivers again? It's difficult to say without any actual data but probably - if for no other reason than to validate that it is still a good rule. It would be helpful if you would stop confusing the "need to gather input from the entire driving community about their desire to continue having the spec tire rule" with the "need to change, or remove, the spec tire rule".

You say that it is evident to you that the rules needed to be reviewed. Please explain why the large number of drivers that voted for the spec tire in the previous ballot doesn't make it evident to you that the driving community supports the spec tire?

Why do you imply that rubber stamping the currently stable rules would leave us with unstable rules for the next season? The norm is for the SCCA to keep the previous rules. The most intense reaction in the recent past has been to rules that were changed for questionable or unknown reasons. Let me remind you all of a few: the rally program, the two year harness rule, and moving the runoffs to Kansas. Changing a rule for the wrong reason is no better than refusing to change a rule.

You've pointed out how you didn't have to come to this forum and tell us any of this. While true, that philosophy doesn't exactly scream openness. Me, I had to come here and take up this battle. Why, because it's my SCCA, it's my class, and it's my fellow IT-7 drivers that have been disparaged.

[gprodracer]

Scott,

We are THISCLOSE to being in agreement on 100% of the subject, but I must again ask you questions on the topics where we part ways in our ideas. Again, this shows that 2 people can read the same posts, and come away with opposite conclusions. I must repeat for the record that Toni and I do not really know each other, hence we have not discussed this issue, and this is my opinion alone.

Here goes. The whole tire issue was done long before she took her current position, so why is she being questioned about what occurred before? If she wasn't there, how can she answer you? I took her "openness" coments, not as a shot at others, but to let people know that the rules were coming up for review, and would have been passed whether anyone knew or not. She chose to let you know what was going on IMHO.
I didn't go back and re-read this entire thread, but where did she state that the "rules needed to be changed"? You say she "came to the conclusion that the rules needed to be changed", but I honestly don't remember her ever saying or implying that in any fashion. She just asked for imput, as the rules were coming before the board for review.

She said it is evident to her that the rules need to be reviewed. It seems that way to me too, considering the various posts in this thread. I will say that the "vocal minority" have spoken here, so there are varying points of view on this (not saying I agree with them, just that they exist).
Last, I saw no implication in her posts "implying that changing the stable rules would leave us with unstable rules", so I really don't know where that statement came from.
You are extremely passionate about your class, and I commend you for it. Keep campaigning for what you believe in, your last post poses other excellent questions that only Toni can answer, so I leave the rest up to you. I'm 100% behind you on the stable rules, spec tire etc, I just didn't get the same impressions from her words that you did, and I didn't see any posts that were directly aimed at insulting any of you. You have the best of intentions in your heart, but I believe that you need to direct your concerns towards the direct liasons to the RE's that are deciding and voting on the future rules of your class.
Best of luck!
Mark

[sgallimo]

Scott,

We are THISCLOSE to being in agreement on 100% of the subject, but I must again ask you questions on the topics where we part ways in our ideas.
....snip....
Best of luck!
Mark
[/b]
Mark, sorry about the lateness of the response. I haven't been looking for Toni to answer anything about what occurred before her. I want just the opposite. I want her to admit that she wasn't involved with it and therefore doesn't officially have an opinion on it. If she has evidence that the previous ballot wasn't executed properly or completely, she should present those facts. I keep asking for details about those problems but no one will provide them. That makes me suspect all of those claims. Until we see something to the contrary, why should we doubt the will of the IT-7 driving community?

Regarding my "stable rules" comment, Toni had said that she was doing all of this so that we would have stable rules in the future. That struck me as an indication that we don't currently have stable rules. I just wanted to point out that I felt we did have stable rules and saw nothing that would keep them from continuing to be so in the future.

I admit that you probably would have to have been involved in numerous conversations that took place since the spec tire rule passed to have been as nervous as some of us regarding the direction this current "request for opinion" appeared to have been heading. You appear to see it all as an innocent attempt to help. I worry that it is something more. That is why I kept asking for facts regarding the complaints about the previous ballot and the coverage and results of the current opinion gathering effort. The refusal to provide either makes me nervous.

I agree with your term the "vocal minority". I believe they have spoken here and I believe they have spoken previously to the officials that Toni mentioned. I believe that Toni's approach will only reflect that "vocal minority" and will bypass the desires of the majority of the community.

[sgallimo]

Following is the IT-7 specific proposal that Chairperson Toni Creighton and the Class Review Board have presented to the REs for their vote on the 29th. (Note that the formatting is different as this was cut and pasted from the original Word document). If you have any comments or concerns, please contact your Regional Executive prior to their departure for the weekend's meeting.

--------------------------------------------------------------

IT7

The IT7 advisory board has three returning members and two new volunteers. They have canvassed drivers personally and there has been a request of opinion on the improvedtouring.com website. There was a recommendation from the ECR Administrator for no spec tire.

Conclusions drawn by the advisory committee: The IT7 community is almost equally divided on the issue of a spec tire for regional racing. There is a slight margin in favor of no spec tire.

The issues seem to be:
- There has been much discussion during the year of the spec tire requirement for IT7. It was enacted just before the SIC when there had been no spec tire requirement during the season. Drivers did not compete in the SIC and told the SARRC Administrator that it was a direct result of the way that the spec tire requirement was enacted.
- There have been drivers who have abandoned the class and are now competing in ITA because of the tire requirement.
- There was a poll taken last year that was said to have reached every IT7 Driver. There are drivers responding this year that say they were not canvassed last year and therefore had no voice in the issue.
- There were many who took part in the canvas of last year that were led to believe that drivers' opinion poll was the final decision making factor and that the rule would never be reviewed.
- The rule was not posted correctly for 2006 according to some.
- Others say the rule was changed mid year.
- The discussion on the improvedtouring.com website was in three different locations. Discussion was viscous at times. Ancestry, nepotism, and the accuracy of reporting of all requests for opinion have been discussed. There was much discussion on the spec tire itself, the canvas from last year, who it reached, who it didn't reach, and the timing of the enactment of the new rule.

Eliminating all items except the spec tire its self seem to be the only solution in determining the rule for 2007.

Issues about the spec tire
1. A spec tire eliminates the need for experimentation with other brands of tires
2. A spec tire is an equalizer of talent
3. A spec tire is an equalizer of budget
4. A spec tire sets the liability by requiring the tire
5. The fast drivers go fast on any tire. The spec tire is not an equalizer.
6. Toyos are in short supply from the at track dealer
7. There is only one source available to everyone
8. Trackside service is better with other brands
9. There is not a contingency program for regional racers with this tire only the requirement to use it
10. There is not a contingency program for regional racing from this distributor
11. Other brands are less expensive
12. Other brands have contingency programs for regional racers
13. Hoosier Dirt Stocker rain tire may not be available from this distributor
14. IT7 cars are legal ITA cars. IT classes are not spec classes and do not have spec tires.

Here are two versions of the proposal:

Version 1
July 1998 this class was initiated for Mazda RX7s model year 1979 through 1985 with a 12 A motor. This class must comply with and be prepared to the IT A rules as published by SCCA GCR and Category Specifications.
Effective October 1, 2005 the spec tire for IT7 is Toyo RA1 DOT - shaved or unshaved. Optional rain tire, Toyo Poxes RA1 DOT shaved or unshaved, or Hoosier Dirt Stocker DOT.

Version 2
July 1998 this class was initiated for Mazda RX7s model year 1979 through 1985 with a 12 A motor. This class must comply with and be prepared to the IT A rules as published by SCCA GCR and Category Specifications.
For the 2007 season any tire eligible for ITA may be used.

Advisory Board
Sam Henderson, Chair [email protected]
Lee Graser [email protected]
Stan Hines [email protected]
Alex Jackson [email protected]
Joe Varble [email protected]

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Toni]

scott
you are about a week behind
go to your re and get what was sent to him
you should post that as well
Tc

[sgallimo]

scott
you are about a week behind
go to your re and get what was sent to him
you should post that as well
Tc
[/b]
Toni, I got that information directly from my RE. It was taken from your note to him, and others, dated July 23, 2006, at 1:34 PM with a subject of "SM & IT7 GTA to be sent separtely". That note contained one attachment titled "SM and IT7 2007.doc". I posted the information from your note on this forum, which you chose as the desired communication vehicle, in the spirit of openness. I did this so that everyone would know what proposal you and the CRB were presenting to the REs for vote so that people would be able to apprise their REs of their opinions.

What are you implying? How is it that you didn't recognize your own letter? To jog your memory, I've attached your note and attachment below:

===================================
-----Original Message-----

From: Toni Creighton [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2006 1:34 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; Senior, Mark; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
Cc: Fred Schmucker; Rick Mitchell; Pete Magnuson
Subject: SM & IT7 GTA to be sent separtely

SM & IT7

GTA to be sent separately
===================================
attachment to the original message:
===================================

[attachmentid=532]

===================================

[sgallimo]

Toni, the Class Review Board's proposal to the RE's for the upcoming meeting slated for the 29th leaves several questions unanswered. As chairperson of the Class Review Board, please answer the following:

- What percentage of the current IT-7 driving community did you reach through your recent polling activity?
- What percentage of those favored an open tire rule?
- What percentage of those favored the current spec tire rule?
- What percentage of the previous IT-7 driving community were not reached by the previous hard copy ballot?
- How can you state that the current IT-7 spec tire rule was enacted just before the SIC when it actually went into effect the previous January? While the SIC was the first event where the spec tire was required, the spec tire rule, and the ballot, made it clear that the spec tire was optional for the races before the SIC. Regardless, why would the timing of the implementation of the rule matter since it was enacted exactly as specified on the ballots and in the proposal to the REs?
- The previous hard copy ballot specifically stated, in bold print, that the REs had to vote on the proposal and that the ballot was to be used only as input for the REs in that vote. With such an obvious explanation to the contrary, please explain how participants could have been confused? What percentage of those participants brought forth that complaint?
- What hard evidence do you have that shows the IT-7 spec tire rule changed mid year? My RE says the current online version of the IT-7 rules match those he voted on in the previous meeting. Do you have proof or was this heresay?
- What proof do you have that the spec tire rule was not posted correctly on the website during 2006? If you have hard evidence that the rule was posted incorrectly, which one of your fellow SEDIV staff corrected the problem and when because the correct rule is currently on the website? Regardless, why would incorrect wording on the website negate the vote by the membership and the vote by the REs?
- Why does the departure of a few drivers negate the vote by the membership and the vote by the REs? Why does the exit of a vocal minority overrule the legitimate votes of the majority that stayed behind?
- Finally, the framers of the spec tire rule were required to directly contact each of the IT-7 drivers before the spec tire rule was presented to the REs for vote. Why do the Chairperson of the Class Review Board
and the IT-7 Advisory Committee feel that that level of canvasing is not required in order to remove that same spec tire rule?