Insurance

[Mattberg]

Just wondering if this bothers anyone but me...

I just finished reading over the newly published insurance rates along with the SCCA operating statement of departmental income and expenses. THe bottom line is this. Solo doesn't seem to be paying their fair share of the liability insurance.

Road racers are paying $31 per car plus a liability payment of $10-15 per car on top of that. Solo pays $4.50 per car and liability and all other insurance is included. How can that be? The expensive part of the insurance is the liability not a particpant event on track. You know, the doffus who trips on the trailer wire? How can 83,000 entries in spectator solo events pay only $377,000 for the year while Club Racing pays $1.37 million? With rising entry costs and decreasing participation due to the expense it seems that paying for Solo's liability insurance is a little out of line. Realistically I've been told that the minimum for Solo's liability would be roughly $10 per event. With 83,000 entries last year that would make them responsible for close to $1.2 million of the bill.

On a side note, check the operating statement out for payments to "Directors, Officers and Committees" as well as "Race Meetings". $1.2 million! THat's a lot of catering! Must have ordered one of them big sandwiches... :P

[tom_sprecher]

You would probably have a better chance of satisfying your curiosity if you pose your question to the insurer.

[Mattberg]

I have done that. Unfortunately, the insurance agent is not very cooperative. You see, Pete Lyon is not only the club's insurance agent and insurer, but also the club's risk management specialist and general counsel not to mention that he is appointed by a BoD that is elected by mostly non-road racers and solo drivers.

I've asked for the breakouts but have been told it's confidential. I've also asked if Solo has a liability policy or if they're taking a free ride on ours. Again, confidential. :rolleyes:

[RSTPerformance]

Matt, I think you are on to something... Solo is far more dangerouse then Road Racing and they should not be taking a free 45second ride on us :rolleyes:

Thanks for pointing that out;

Raymond "Some people would make a better cone" Blethen

[Eric Parham]

If road racing (RR) is covering the Solo liability insurance, it doesn't necessarily bother me. It does pique my curiosity that they're apparently trying to hide it from the membership at large, but I can imagine an excusable reason for that. Who (which company) actually underwrites the insurance these days? Is re-insurance involved?

Solo is not only the traditional entry point for many road racers, but it's also both good public relations and good for society in general. I started in Solo and know for a fact that my car-control skills improved dramatically during that time. The skills learned by the masses in Solo translate most directly to increased safety on public roads, IMHO. RR is more expensive, so while RR specific skills may also result in higher safety on public roads, there is not as much of a practical effect due to the reduced number of participants who gain those skills.

If the only reason for the difference in expenses between RR and Solo were the insurance, then I'd be 100% for Solo paying its fair share. However, I believe that the facts are different. RR typically requires a purpose-built machine, while Solo participants typically use their regular street cars. I think that's the main difference in cost that tends to put RR out of reach for many.

[BobsAuto]

I was very surprised when I read about the the liability being lower in Solo. Workers at solo events ARE moving pylons and in years past, I remember having had to dodge the bonzai driver going all haywire over the course. Interesting perspectives here.....and yes, quite unfair.

[Mattberg]

Well Raymond, not sure what you're saying there but it sounds to me like you're being somewhat facetious in putting road racing into a category of far more dangerous and therefore more expensive to insure. That's really not the case.

The real insurance cost as it has been explained to me has little to do with the level of "hazard" element. It's all about liability for the event and facilities for injuries sustained by those not overtly accepting the risk of participating in an "ultra-hazardous" activity as it is termed by law and the industry. In other words, by taking to the track, working or spectating you accept the burden of risk and virtually eliminate yourself from any potential claim regarding liability for injury. And liabililty is where the big bucks are. There is a great deal of case law related to this, mostly in equine law.

So the real danger of insurance company risk relates to incidents outside the realm or definition of the activity and "non-participants", i.e., the "trip and fall" and in most cases it's no greater at a road racing event than a Solo event or a grocery store for that matter, which is what makes me question the difference in rates. Many have tried to sue for activities related directly to the defined activity and all have failed. Even regarding spectators. A girl killed by a hockey puck, a man gored by a broken bat, a worker killed by a car off course, etc. They accepted the risk and it's printed on their ticket and/or waiver. Conversely, spectating or participating, slipping on a wet bathroom floor, potentially as the result of faulty plumbing, is a whole different story. Medical claims without liability are peanuts. Very calculatable risk. It's the lawsuits and personal injury claims arising out of those incidents where risk has not been acknowledged that the insurance companies fear and precedent is very complete in this area. When you get in a race car on a track or in a parking lot with or without other cars your chance of suing anyone for an incident is just about nil outside of gross or criminal negligence on the part of event management or facility.

I'm pretty much convinced that the reason there is such a difference in the insurance cost here is because the expensive insurance policy, general liability, is a single policy carried entirely by club racing for the entire club. The medical coverage is the cheap stuff and is capped. I'd also assume that the Solo medical is strategically broken out from road racing because while liability is probably close to the same for any event based on attendance and participation, road racing is obviously going to be more expensive just based on the potential severity of a participant medical claim(s) arising out of any incident, which BTW, are few and far between.

[Mattberg]

I was very surprised when I read about the the liability being lower in Solo. Workers at solo events ARE moving pylons and in years past, I remember having had to dodge the bonzai driver going all haywire over the course. Interesting perspectives here.....and yes, quite unfair.
[/b]

Trish, as far as I can tell, Solo doesn't pay anything for liability. It's included in their $4.50. They get the same medical we get and pay as much as ten times less in premiums. I have to believe that they're simply piggybacked on a single liability policy carried on the club racing department books. It's hard to believe they get event liability coverage of $5M and all of the medical we get for a payment of $90 minimum per event where our minimum is $4100 for the same coverage. WOW!

[RSTPerformance]

Trish & Matt-

The risks in Road Racing are far higher than in solo. I am not going to waste my time explaining why, most people feel the same. Because of this, I am OK with the rates that you quoted at this moment in my life with SCCA. If I ever (30-40yrs from now) have extra time to look into it a bit more maybe I will worry about it. I appreciate you at least looking into it and keeping us informed though, thanks Matt.

Raymond

[handfulz28]

Raymond, the risks for participants are different, but the "General Liability" that Matt is writing about has little or nothing to do with on-track risk. Say somebody trips over a jack handle and busts their head open. Equal chance of that happening at a Solo event or a RR event. That person or their family coming back and suing SCCA is the type of thing GL covers. Treating that injury would be covered by a seperate Medical Insurance policy, up to the limits of that policy.
There is no liability insurance for on-track stuff. We as participants (Solo and RR) are covered for medical, but we can't come back and sue anybody. I hope I explained that OK?

I for one am thankful for Matt's efforts to keep an eye on what's going on. Unfortunately, we're full of complacency and even if we did have a strategy for change, I think nobody cares enough to follow through.

Matt, when you say Club Racing is carrying the premium for the entire club, do you mean Solo, Rally, and Club Racing? Or are we covering any Pro stuff too?

Good luck, have fun,
Michael

[JeffYoung]

Guys, I just skimmed this thread, but one point that is being lost here......(and yes, I am a lawyer, ducking now)......."premises" or general type liability issues, the tripping over the jack, still have to involve some fault on the part of the SCCA. Yes, this is America, and yes we are incredibly litigious, but you can't sue the SCCA and/or the track simply because YOU fell on a jack.

I know that most of us don't have much faith in our Court system (and please don't post about the McDonald's coffee case, etc.), but I will tell you that if someone sued over falling on their own jack in a paddock area, 99 times out of 100 that case is GONE on a motion to dismiss.

So, again, I'm at a loss here. It seems to me that Matt's basic premise -- that Solo and Road Racing have the same "premises"/general liability type risk -- is correct, but what is faulty about his thinking is that he beleives it is that risk that is driving the rate calculation. I suspect it is not, given the above.

Premiums are calculated based on loss experience and lawsuits, and remember that insurance is a highly regulated industry in ALL states. Rates are generally approved by a Department of Insurance or its like, for the most part. In any event, I suspect that the loss experience and lawsuit frequency for road racing is much higher than Solo, and that is what is driving the difference in premium.

[RSTPerformance]

Look at a Road Racing padock vs a Solo padock. Most people tow thier cars vs. drive thier cars, In Road Racing we camp with 100's of people for multiple days, yes racing (seperate risk to some, but I am sure that it has to play with things) but also having workers on stations (that has to be a liability), and "social" events at night. In Solo people come for the day and leave after a brief trophy/award ceramony that doesn't involve drinking or food of any kind. Yes thier are acceptions with "special events" but in talking general liability lets look at things in a general event ;)

Raymond "EVERYTHING but your cone is safer in a Solo than it is at a Road Racing event" Blethen

[ggnagy]

1. Solo events are not "High speed events", and so as far as personal insurance goes, is looked at in a much different light than Road Racing. Any bets the insurance underwriters look at it the same way from the other end?

2. Any time you get hurt and go to medical at a Road Race, you get a card detailing the SCCAs medical policy that will cover whatever your regular policy will not for the injury specified. Can't say I've ever been hurt at a Solo event, but I have never seen any official ready to hand out the same policy information.

3. Why bother. No matter what anyone points out, Matt is going to regurgitate the same pap over and over and over and over....

:dead_horse:

[charrbq]

I'm kinda curious as to why this is a news worthy item. As long as I can remember, club racing has always footed the bill for everything. That's where the club was founded. Even though the Solo 2 championships draw huge entries, they really don't pay thier way and never have. Consider it our loss leader. Road rally is really a sponge, which is why we don't do Pro any more, but it still recruits membership and interest. Where the vacuum of our funds goes is in SCCA Enterprises. Now there's a hole in the ground!

[JamesB]

Im lost, you want to dump enterprises that ran at a net loss of only 100k for 2005, but you have no problem with that fact that pro ran an a 500k loss for the same year? At least enterprises has a chance of breaking even at its current rate, I would like to see pro do the same.

[gran racing]

This is where things become a bit tough. One reason I became an SCCA member can be attributed to SCCA's World Challenge. People watch the racing and learn about SCCA, so there is value to it.

[lateapex911]

Advertising is expensive.

People bitch that Pro costs too much and they don't get the direct benefit from it.

But without Pro, I wonder if the Secret Car Club of America might cease to be visible at all, LOL.

(In other words, the direct benefit to us is the continual influx of peole to play in out sandbox...no new blood, no racing.)

That said, smartly done advertising is needed, and getting pro to be sharper with the expense accounts can't hurt. Not sure if they can do that or will....

[Mattberg]

I'm kinda curious as to why this is a news worthy item. As long as I can remember, club racing has always footed the bill for everything. That's where the club was founded. Even though the Solo 2 championships draw huge entries, they really don't pay thier way and never have. Consider it our loss leader. Road rally is really a sponge, which is why we don't do Pro any more, but it still recruits membership and interest. Where the vacuum of our funds goes is in SCCA Enterprises. Now there's a hole in the ground!
[/b]


Why do we need a loss leader? Have you looked at our books lately? Are you aware that we just paid Fran Am probably upwards of $6 million to settle a lawsuit of which a large portion was not covered by insurance? Are you aware we've just drawn to the max on a $600,000 LC incurring debt service yet we're leding $300,000 to Pro Racing at 4%? Sombody's got to put on the brakes here. What I'm seeing is a common problem when people without money get to play with other people's money. We need a loss leader like we need another lawsuit.

Solo as a recruiting base is a myth. The numbers are very clear on that. When it comes time to spend the money, very, very few can or will do it. If there were any significant crossover we'd see no worse than static rates on club racing entries but instead it's been in steady decline while entries for Solo have gone up. The math doesn't add up.

Let's say there was a crossover of 1%. Well, out of 83,000 Solo entries last year road racing would see an increase of over 800 entries to road racing. Let's say that 1% only does a third of the number of races versus solo events they did. That's an increase for road racing of 260 entries. Well, road racing was down somewhere around 200 for the umpteenth consecutive year so I have a hard time believing there is any crossover worth spending $830,000 on or do I see any reason for carrying a loss leader other than to throw away cash. Sorry folks. I'm sure some of you started in Solo and someone always uses themself as an example... yea, yea... Randy Pobst, yada, yada, yada, but it's the exception, not the rule.

And I'd rather see $100,000 going to Enterprises which supports over 1200 of our own. I'm also told that Enterprises will report a profit this year. I don't think the same can or will ever be said for Solo, Rally or Pro. So let's get our own insurance or at least a quote and get one without liability coverage for 83,000 Solo entries. Let's see if our bill is still $1.4 million. I strongly doubt it will be.

[JeffYoung]

And the risk to us, as members, if the house of cards (as you see it) comes tumbling down is what?

.........drum roll......NOTHING. Just that the SCCA goes away. For my $100/year or whatever it is, I am glad I am paying them to take care of this stuff. If SCCA goes away because they mismanged my $100, someone else who has a better model will spring up to take over.

I just don't get the reason for all the angst over where my dues go. I'm happy with what I get (a good mag, and road racing basically whenever I want it) for my money. I also, like Jake, beleive that World Challenge is a good investment. It's about the only time I ever see the words "SCCA" on TV or in the press.

[Z3_GoCar]

I'm kinda curious as to why this is a news worthy item. As long as I can remember, club racing has always footed the bill for everything. That's where the club was founded. Even though the Solo 2 championships draw huge entries, they really don't pay thier way and never have. Consider it our loss leader. Road rally is really a sponge, which is why we don't do Pro any more, but it still recruits membership and interest. Where the vacuum of our funds goes is in SCCA Enterprises. Now there's a hole in the ground!
[/b]

From the Prod-board,

Matt's angered because Pro-racing secured a loan from Club-Racing. In that thread a BOD member states that Solo is in fact the "Cash Cow" not Club-Racing. I can understand the issues, if you look at the votes that were recorded that opened these minutes to record and then the vote on the loan. However; why would solo be such a cash cow if it were actually paying its own way. Matt's hinting that subterfuge is involved to funnel club-racing monies into solo to make it look like it's really much more profitable than it is. It's really all chicken little stuff.

Let's just say, that the SCCA does become insolvant, what then?? Well, most of us live in area's that have a strong regional club. In fact why would the regions fall if the National club fails? As an example before the SCCA was a strong national club, the California Sports Car Club hosted races and sanctioned events. Really what would stop us from regional club racing, unless it was a real end-of-the-world event? Then I'd think we'd have more important things on our minds.

James

[charrbq]

[quote]
Why do we need a loss leader? Have you looked at our books lately? Are you aware that we just paid Fran Am probably upwards of $6 million to settle a lawsuit of which a large portion was not covered by insurance? Are you aware we've just drawn to the max on a $600,000 LC incurring debt service yet we're leding $300,000 to Pro Racing at 4%?


Yes, I'm aware of it, and I don't like that Pro Racing is loosing money, too. But Pro Racing is still needed. It's where we started and where we gained recognition and where we still gain recognition, even though not as much. It does need to be managed better, but I wouldn't know where to begin on that thought.

I suggest that before you jump down someone's throat screaming that they are unaware, you look in the mirror and check that guy out first. Your "suppose" figures are usefull only in high school math lectures, and your inuendo does your cause no good.

[Mattberg]

And the risk to us, as members, if the house of cards (as you see it) comes tumbling down is what?

.........drum roll......NOTHING. Just that the SCCA goes away. For my $100/year or whatever it is, I am glad I am paying them to take care of this stuff. If SCCA goes away because they mismanged my $100, someone else who has a better model will spring up to take over.

I just don't get the reason for all the angst over where my dues go. I'm happy with what I get (a good mag, and road racing basically whenever I want it) for my money. I also, like Jake, beleive that World Challenge is a good investment. It's about the only time I ever see the words "SCCA" on TV or in the press.
[/b]

Jeff, I too am happy to have someone managing things for us for such a small fee. I just sent in my check for $150 without hesitation. But how would you feel if you got in on a group purchase of race wheels and then the guy who organized it, without telling anyone, used a good portion of the discount to get himself a free set?

Club racing on its own looks pretty darn healthy to me from what I see on the books. Especially considering the many years of declining participation. First, I'm a little angry that they deceptively make it look as though it's not doing that well, and I'm even more insulted that the BoD calls Solo the "cash cow". Second, and more importantly, why should a good thing (RR) be so heavily burdened by a different and entirely independent department(s) within the club? Why not let each department pay their fair share and let the chips fall where they may?

I'm also uneasy in principle, on how the operating statements and financial reporting is carried out. It is extremely misleading and seemingly intentional. Just as an example, they assign all club racing and Solo contributions to their respective accounts on the income statement for everything from sanction to license fees without exception. By the book. But, when it comes to insurance contributions, all of the sudden they change accounting method and there is no breakout or departmental assignment even though the proceeds are collected and accounted for separately like all the others. Even worse, they then assign no contributions to either department's income or expense accounts and assign it all to the Topeka admin account as a pass through! It's arbitrary and random. That then allows them to zero out the category on both sides of the balance sheet and conceal the premiums paid in by each department. It's this kind of "random" accounting that keeps everyone in the dark about what's really going on and keeps us paying more and others paying less to go racing.

There's too much apathy about how these things are being handled or should I say how we road racers are being "handled". Road racing's value to the club is consistently discounted and your comments perpetuate officials' attiude towards us of "we can do anything we want. Racers will always pay". There shouldn't even be any talk of financial trouble if it were just road racing. Sitting back and accepting it because you're happy enough isn't helping anyone or anything, it only allows it to continue. There are places in the country where entree fees up around the $400 mark. We need more cost control, better representation and less of our contributions wandering off into unrelated areas that serve us no benefit.

[lateapex911]

But how would you feel if you got in on a group purchase of race wheels and then the guy who organized it, without telling anyone, used a good portion of the discount to get himself a free set?[/b]

Bad example, Matt...if he said i was going to get a set of wheels for a price, and I liked that price, then how could I complain?? HE did the legwork, HE negotiated the deal, HE paid for the phonecalls, and so on. HE is in the position to recoup his time and money. Fair enough.



There are places in the country where entree fees up around the $400 mark. We need more cost control, better representation and less of our contributions wandering off into unrelated areas that serve us no benefit.
[/b]

But again Matt, high entry fees are a terrible example, and may have NOTHING to do with your theoretical point. Entry fees at Lime Rock are up...way up...to almost $400. Why??? Because LIME ROCK is up...way up...to $44,000 for a Friday/Sat weekend. That's right....somebody's yearly salary is being paid for in two days, LOL. IIRC, the price two years ago was #23,000. So, perhaps the connection is increased rental costs? Sure is in this case.

[gran racing]

There are places in the country where entree fees up around the $400 mark.[/b]

This is seperate from the SCCA National monies. At Lime Rock Park in CT, the entry fees are now upto ~ $300 for a single race weekend, but that's primarily due to the amount the region gets charged for the track rental.

[JamesB]

This is where things become a bit tough. One reason I became an SCCA member can be attributed to SCCA's World Challenge. People watch the racing and learn about SCCA, so there is value to it.
[/b]


Dave I am not saying pro should go, I am saying I would like to see them get more return on their investment dollars. I love World Challenge and I want to see it continue. But even friends who live within say 3 hours of a track usually never hear any local advertising to get people in the seats. but when nastycar rolls into town the have ads all over the place.

So I would just like to see pro racing do a little more to fill some seats which though doesnt earn them much, still earns more then nothing.

[Joe Harlan]

It really doesn't matter if you agree with Matt or not on his delivery of the message. The Message is we have a BOD that has lost our money. It is not the 100 dollars a year we pay in dues. It is the fees that are charged to our regions for sanctions and insurance. I personally do not want to see a single program go any where. Pro and Solo and Ralley all have a place but they all need to carry their own water and share of the overhead. It is fine to prop a bad year or two up from time to time but road racing has carried the water for everything in this club for far to long. We need to get qualified business people on our National and Local BODs.

[Bill Miller]

Yes, I'm aware of it, and I don't like that Pro Racing is loosing money, too. But Pro Racing is still needed. It's where we started and where we gained recognition and where we still gain recognition, even though not as much. It does need to be managed better, but I wouldn't know where to begin on that thought.
[/b]

Chris,

Please explain how the SCCA started w/ pro racing.

[Mattberg]

Jeeez Jake, all you ever want to do is start an argument versus addressing the issues. Instead of criticizing analogies why don't you comment on the topic.?

What about Solo not paying for their own liability insurance? What about road racers footing that bill? What about stupid things like road racers being FORCED to buy a GCR and Solo gets it free on-line? Two year belts? Passenger side window nets? How about no license fees for Solo and ours go up every year? How does that affect the insurance they're not paying? What's the risk of a 23 year old with five accidents on his driving record and a DUI getting in a Viper in a public school parking lot with 200 people standing around?

Why can't you see what's going on? This is an autocrossing club now. It's all about them not us. We get whatever the minimum is they can give us and they take whatever they can extract from us down to the last red cent. This insurance crap is absolute BS and should be stopped. Let them pay their own damn bill. Take $20 dollars off every one of our entry fees because that's about what it adds up to. And you are worng about the entry fees. Check the insurance premiums charged to the region for each sanction. $46 per driver is just insurance.

All I ask is that each department carry their own P&L and GL. Is that asking too much?

[lateapex911]

I criticize analogies because they are what you base your case on.

Perhaps I am not clear, but I haven't seen the proof or the actual numbers that make your case.

Not only that, I am not so sure that what it costs me for fees and such is really all that much, and I haven't been left with a feeling that I'm getting screwed, so I honestly don't pay that much attention to it. Bigger fish to fry, and all that....

Besides, "All I do is..." work on commitees trying to make racing better.....if you'd like, I can stop wasting my time there, and start whining on the net about things I really don't understand completely.

[Mattberg]

I criticize analogies because they are what you base your case on.

Perhaps I am not clear, but I haven't seen the proof or the actual numbers that make your case.

Not only that, I am not so sure that what it costs me for fees and such is really all that much, and I haven't been left with a feeling that I'm getting screwed, so I honestly don't pay that much attention to it. Bigger fish to fry, and all that....

Besides, "All I do is..." work on commitees trying to make racing better.....if you'd like, I can stop wasting my time there, and start whining on the net about things I really don't understand completely.
[/b]


The rates are published on the SCCA web site. A sanctioned road race has a minimum insurance premium of $4100. A Solo event is $90 with no liability surcharge. Pretty simple. THere is also a per car breakdown without liability. Road racing is $31 per while Solo is $4.50 per. Those are the facts.

[tom_sprecher]

Hmmm....

Road racing. 120 mph+, with lots of traffic and concrete walls, workers on the track, multiple day event, $31 a car.

Solo racing. 70 mph max, no traffic or concrete walls or workers, for one day, $4.50 a car.

Seems like a subject not worth the time....

:dead_horse:

[JamesB]

matt you only have half the facts, you always have since the start of this thread.

untill you can answer questions like what are the true cost of insurence on each sanction for club and solo evnets? as far as I see it your still in the dark.

[Joe Harlan]

James and others the prices and facts can be found in this document:

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/2006RateSheet.pdf

Jake, Buddy stay on the committees your on your doing good work but don't just automatically shoot a deal down cause Matt presented it. There are serious finacial issues going on and they need to be paid attention too.

I would also add that liability is likely the biggest cost of this club insurance and that liability is the same at any speed. 1 spectator or extra gets hurt at either event, It will be the liability that get charged. At this point only Road Racing is paying liability insurance and that fee is a big nut.

I see no way that they can include liability at 4.50 a car.

Let me also say it is not just about insurance and this is worth talking about. BAd choices are being made all the time and that is what continues to raise our costs as drivers. I will ask this all of you. Would you take 300k out of a safe investment making 5% and loan it to Pro racing on nothing more than a signature for 4% interest? Anyone that says yes to that my corporation wants to borrow money from. The real deal is finding qualified people to make good choices for the future of this club to run for office. There are some very good candidates right here on this board. Discussion is the only way that things will ever change. SO IT IS NOT A WASTE OF TIME IN THIS CASE.

[RSTPerformance]

What's the risk of a 23 year old with five accidents on his driving record and a DUI getting in a Viper in a public school parking lot with 200 people standing around?

This is an autocrossing club now. It's all about them not us.
[/b]

I don't see any risk in the 23 year old you mentioned above... How many autocrossers have you seen drinking at the parking lot? Your ability to get through the cones has nothing to do with your number of DUI's and the number of accidents you have had.

Now, lets look at the risk of your 23 year old at Road Racing circut??? hummm not much difference IMO...
but if you did want to throw stones, I see a much bigger risk having an accident prone, drunk driver, driving around our padock that has far more "action" than the autocross padock. Also when was the last time you saw a person in the padock at a road race drinking??? Unfortunatly from what I have sceen it is far more common than at an Autocross, not only during the day after thier "specific race" but also at the end of the day after all the races are over.




This insurance crap is absolute BS and should be stopped. Let them pay their own damn bill. Take $20 dollars off every one of our entry fees because that's about what it adds up to. And you are worng about the entry fees. Check the insurance premiums charged to the region for each sanction. $46 per driver is just insurance.

All I ask is that each department carry their own P&L and GL. Is that asking too much?
[/b]

I am not sure if that is asking to much or not and/or if something needs to done about it, simply because I like many others don't understand all of it. I do however trust those that run my region and feel that if something was ascue they would be doing the things necessary to correct them, afterall thats why I voted for them.

Unfortunatly for you, SCCA is a democracy much like our government and while we don't agree with everything the people at the top are doing, all we can do is vote for people we trust and hope that those people are in positions to fix the things that need the most important attention. Unfortunatly for us we also need to coexist with the protestors such as yourself even if we don't agree with it or don't want to be bothered by it.

Raymond "How do you feel about our own Mr. Bush?" Blethen

[JamesB]

But then it should cost me the exact same to put liability on all of my cars. But in truth the prices are different based on the potential of the car. take a NA car vs. its turbo model, there are differnent liablitiy rates.

I see what they CHARGE for each event, but what is the actual insurence cost per event charged by the binding company? I cannot see them being the same. General risk assesments alone in club you have an exponentially higher momentum that can create some dramatic crashes based off a simple spin. So untill those questions on the true cost of the binder for a club event vs. a solo event I cannot just take half the facts and treat it like an inadiqucy untill I know the true cost.

[RSTPerformance]

James and others the prices and facts can be found in this document:

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/2006RateSheet.pdf

Discussion is the only way that things will ever change. SO IT IS NOT A WASTE OF TIME IN THIS CASE.
[/b]


Interesting document... I can say that this is the ONLY place that I have read actual fact that I trust as it comes directly from SCCA. If you have other documents you can site links to that would/could possibly also be interesting to read. This particular document doesn't mention any proof on how the rates are determined, it just states the current rates. Who determines the rates, is it the Insurance carrier or SCCA? If it is the Insurance carrier we don't have much choice, they offer what they offer. If it is SCCA distributing the cost across different events then thier HAS TO BE a process that is/was followed, does anyone now what that process is? Does anyone know our experience levels for each catagory listed?

Raymond

[Joe Harlan]

But then it should cost me the exact same to put liability on all of my cars. But in truth the prices are different based on the potential of the car. take a NA car vs. its turbo model, there are differnent liablitiy rates.

I see what they CHARGE for each event, but what is the actual insurence cost per event charged by the binding company? I cannot see them being the same. General risk assesments alone in club you have an exponentially higher momentum that can create some dramatic crashes based off a simple spin. So untill those questions on the true cost of the binder for a club event vs. a solo event I cannot just take half the facts and treat it like an inadiqucy untill I know the true cost.
[/b]


So based on the link I posted you feel Solo should have no liability cost?


Raymond, Sorry dude but local boards are getting voted in based more on popularity than actual qualification. You cannot not be sure that anyone is paying attention to these issues unless you ask... I believe the statement was "trust but verify"

Here you go Raymond from the Dec fastrac:
MOTION: That the vote to fund SCCA Pro Racing, be made in open session. (Porterfield/Sauce) PASSED, VOTING, No, Jones.
MOTION: To approve a loan to SCCA Pro Racing in the amount of $300,000, payable within two years, at a rate of 4% per year. (Jones/Gordy)
PASSED, VOTING No, Christian, Sauce, Porterfield.

[charrbq]

Chris,

Please explain how the SCCA started w/ pro racing.
[/b]

My bad, that's what I get for trying to think and type at the same time. We started as a club and continue as such. Pro Racing came along later, and that's where the club got its notariety. It was the Trans Am, the Can Am, Formula 5000, etc. that put us on the map. Sorry, I'm guilty of trying to do too many things at once.

Admittedly, factories pulled out at various times that cause problems in the respective series, but they still could be promoted better than they are now. And that would give the SCCA some of the good PR that it once held.

[shwah]

I have experience with Motosport insurance on a much smaller scale, helping to found/run a local marque club.

We run several different events that require insurance - autocross series (5-7 year), HPDE days (2-3 year), large car show (1 event). By far the most expensive is the car show, none of the cars are moving, but we have several thousand people walking around the facility all day and that represents greater risk to our insurance company. This event alone is more costly to insure than all of our driving events combined in some years. The track days are not competitve events, but are approximately the same insurance cost as the autocrosses (typical participation 30-60 drivers).

Based on that experience, I would say that the event that draws more people to the facility would be more expensive to insure. Not being an SCCA autocrosser, I don't have any feel for turnout compared to road racing.

[handfulz28]

You see, Pete Lyon is not only the club's insurance agent and insurer, but also the club's risk management specialist and general counsel[/b]

Matt, sorry I'm too lazy to try and find the detail myself, but is there some way we can confirm this as fact? Are Risk Manager and GC actual job titles/descriptions that he's earning some benefit (salary?) from? Or does he offer risk mgmt through a consultative role?
If he's an "employee" serving as GC and risk manager, that's one of the biggest examples of conflict of interest. I won't sit here and say that SCCA isn't getting the best deal, but there'd better be plenty of sealed bids to prove that's what we got. I wonder how often we shop the insurance coverage?

What if road racers were paying $10/set more for those wheels than solo drivers? It's a subsidy that has a difficult to determine value... R O I.
Obviously the club isn't going to go away, and we're not going to stop racing over $10. The point is are the best decisions being made? Without the information, only the "insiders" know...if they even know what they're looking at.

[m33mcg]

[attachmentid=691]Who paid for this?

[Joe Harlan]

Risk Management
Pete Lyon Risk Manager/Legal Counsel

Right from SCCA.com

[Eric Parham]

Risk Management
Pete Lyon Risk Manager/Legal Counsel

Right from SCCA.com
[/b]
Taken alone, that is not a conflict of interest.



You see, Pete Lyon is not only the club's insurance agent and insurer, but also the club's risk management specialist and general counsel not to mention that he is appointed by a BoD that is elected by mostly non-road racers and solo drivers.
[/b]
If the part about "insurance agent and insurer" is also accurate, that's the part that looks odd. Is it accurate?

[Joe Harlan]

[attachmentid=691]Who paid for this?
[/b]


Wow, that's a scarey example of what can happen..

[Mattberg]

I have experience with Motosport insurance on a much smaller scale, helping to found/run a local marque club.

We run several different events that require insurance - autocross series (5-7 year), HPDE days (2-3 year), large car show (1 event). By far the most expensive is the car show, none of the cars are moving, but we have several thousand people walking around the facility all day and that represents greater risk to our insurance company. This event alone is more costly to insure than all of our driving events combined in some years. The track days are not competitve events, but are approximately the same insurance cost as the autocrosses (typical participation 30-60 drivers).

Based on that experience, I would say that the event that draws more people to the facility would be more expensive to insure. Not being an SCCA autocrosser, I don't have any feel for turnout compared to road racing.
[/b]

EXACTLY! FINALLY SOMEONE WHO UNDERSTANDS WHAT LIABILTIY INSURANCE IS!

Guys, Please read the above quote. Liability has nothing to do with how fast you go or how dangerous the activity is. The medical coverage is reflective of that. We can't sue so the insurance company has no liability. Liability is what they call a potentially substantial risk above calculatable and manageable risk outside of the insured participants. It has NOTHING to do with the event medium. It has to do with lawsuits from those with the ability to make a case and sue. Medical payments are nothing. Very manageable. A personal injury lawsuit is NOT capped or part of a sepcified plan. Potentially it could cost millions. That's why liability insurance is so expensive. It can turn into a runaway loss.

Get the notion of which sport is more dangerous out of your heads for just a minute. It has NOTHING to do with liability. Particpants can't sue anyone. It's the legal fees and potentially arbitrary damages resulting from a judgement by a non-participant that the insurance company fears. Nothing to do with the racing or activity. Most of you are mixing the medical coverage and liability into one common single classification of "insurance". Medical is capped. Ask an insurance guy whether he'd rather pay off a big medical claim on a road racing accident or face some ambulance chasing contingency lawyer in court on a slip and fall in a junior high school parking lot, and he'll take the medical claim from the road racer all day long. Remember, liability risk is all about legal fees, not danger involved in the activity.

[Mattberg]

But then it should cost me the exact same to put liability on all of my cars. But in truth the prices are different based on the potential of the car. take a NA car vs. its turbo model, there are differnent liablitiy rates.[/b]

Personal auto insurance is far different that event liability insurance. And remember, the liability coverage has NOTHING to do with the cars in our case. With a personal auto liability policy it has everything to do with it. Millions of numbers are crunched by actuaries at insurance companies allocating portions of personal auto liability risk using historical data based on everything from number of cylinders to potential driving distraction features. THey tehn assign a value to each of those policy components and come up with a number based on claims already filed. The average rate of liability claims involving a certain car and driver profile is x, therefor the premium is 1/x. But to tell you the truth, liability on different cars for the same driver shouldn't differ that much. My 1999 truck and my 2006 Acura are only $30 apart for the same coverage.

In the case of our libility for the event it's just about how many people are there and the likelihood of something happening outside the event activity for which someone could be held liable for damages beyond the general insurance. How many cyclinders are in the cars or how fast they go doesn't figure into it. The only common thread is that it's insurance to protect against lawsuits not medical coverage.

[Mattberg]

Taken alone, that is not a conflict of interest.
If the part about "insurance agent and insurer" is also accurate, that's the part that looks odd. Is it accurate?
[/b]

Here you go:

SCCA/SCCA PRO Master Insurance Plan 2006
Summary of SCCA Participant Accident Coverage
Written by ACE American Insurance Company
through Wisenberg Insurance + Risk Management

http://www.wisenberg.com/TeamMembers.htm

My question is are we also paying for Pro racing's liability?

[RSTPerformance]

Matt-

I couldn't get the last link you posted to work... and I am not sure it answers my question, maybe you can.

How are the different rates determined for the different "events" that SCCA puts on?

What is our past experince (Claims) in each "event type?"

Again Matt, as mentioned earlier among my lack of caring on this topic, thank you for your interest in this area of SCCA. Even though I don't fully understand it and didn't have interest before, I appreciate learning about the topic, even if I feel that I have voted in people that can handle the issues. I at least can ask questions to them now or in the future.

Raymond

[JeffYoung]

Link worked for me. Pete Lyon, who is Risk Manager for SCCA and therefore involved in insurance program selection, is also Director of Legal Affairs for the insurance agent who apparently supplies SCCA with its coverage.

That is odd, I agree.

[JamesB]

Untill you have that information on true actual costs of coverage your always going to grasp at straws.

Matt dont base your insurence rates argument based on non competitive track events vs. autocross. I am sorry but untill I know exactly what levels of liability are required, and the RISK assement of each style of event I cannot agree you have the full picture only half.

Also ever consider that there may be a base liablity rate negotiated and that the higher risk events require supplimental coverage above that basic liablility coverage?

[Joe Harlan]

James, How about you take the lead and try to get that information. You seem not to want to look at the facts that have been provided so maybe youcould get more info that would help. I find it hard to believe that a full solo 200 participants with people standing exposed to cars on the surface could be any cheaper to insure for liability that a Road Race where people are protected by walls and fences. Maybe you will find more answers to prove me wrong.

[JamesB]

True enough. I will send an e-mail inquery to see what reponse I get. But remember this, I never had an issue with the current insurence costs, and I am not going to let a letter of rates for the season insurence costs be my only basis of fact to change my opinion that club racers are in fact footing the bill.

[Joe Harlan]

See James I see that attitude as part of the problem. Even if you were present with facts your mind is closed to it. I recommend you inquire of your area director the exact method on how the BOD splits these costs including how much of the total bill they assign to each compartment of the national office.

[RSTPerformance]

See James I see that attitude as part of the problem. Even if you were present with facts your mind is closed to it. I recommend you inquire of your area director the exact method on how the BOD splits these costs including how much of the total bill they assign to each compartment of the national office.
[/b]


Joe-

I have to support James on this one... It seems to me that noone here understands how the BOD (or others such as the insurance company) splits these costs, thus maybe those that are upset should be the ones finding out how the splits are done, and then if you still feel that it is still an issue that you and others want support on maybe you could post whats wrong with how the splits are done?

I understand that you don't agree that "we" as road racers should pay more, but I am confused as to why you or anyone else can be upset if you don't understand the process that makes them different.

Raymond

[Joe Harlan]

Raymond, I fully understand the process. It just takes an open mind to see it.

[JeffYoung]

Damn you can be a pompous know it all Joe.

Please tell me, how do you know how the BoD allocates insurance costs to entry fees?

Enlighten me and open my mind. Maybe I am wrong. I truly don't believe that the BoD is having road race entry fees subsidize autox entry fees. Show me the numbers where I am wrong.

I am open to some of the scrutiny you and Matt are engaging in here, but I am telling you both, your message gets diluted by the way you present it.

[JohnRW]

Beware of opinions masquerading as facts. No one here has any facts, so the 'facts' presented so far are purely conjecture about how the pie is divided. Sure...I'd like to know how the pie is divided, but I'm not particularly worked up about it. Why ? Read on...

About once a year, I 'chair' an SCCA race weekend. What does a Race Chairman do ? All the dirty, scut-like administrative stuff that must be done in advance...make sure the track contract & deposits are done, make sure that T&S will have enough paper & toner, make sure that trophies are ordered, blah blah blah quack quack quack AND MAKE SURE THE INSURANCE IS IN PLACE by filing all the necessary paperwork and sending the requisite checks...and then doing all the 'post-race' paper work and tow fund audits and insurance audits blah blah blah. Chaired a bunch of Nat'ls, chaired a bunch of Reg'ls, and managed to find time to actually race those weekends, too. Once I even ran two different cars.

About 3 years ago, I was chairing a Nat'l at a certain NEDiv track that happens to be owned by a subsidiary of a rather large racing organization that's headquartered near a famous beach in Florida. The track normally managed the Friday 'Test Day' themselves...they provide staffing...and insurance bonds...but interestingly enough, we were contacted by their representatives and asked to make the Friday Test Day an SCCA-sanctioned test day, as they knew our costs for insurance coverage (it's published on the web, afterall....) and their own insurance provider couldn't get anywhere close to the costs for insurance in the SCCA package. We provided the insurance...and continued to do this for several years, until just this year.

Think about that....probably the largest race-sanctioning organization in the western hemisphere...providing sanctions to big & little tracks all around the country...and OWNING tracks all around the country...and the 900lb. gorilla in US motorsports...one of their major subsidiaries couldn't get as good a deal as we were getting in the SCCA package. This is the same package as we have today...although our costs have tweaked by maybe a buck or two per car.

Let's address the 'liability' issue here, too...although some here seem to have become instant experts on risk management and loss-history. Let's say you drill a wall in your A Sedan and mess up a bunch of guardrail, or back into a garage door in the track garage...do you get a bill ? There are race organizations that send the track after YOU to collect payment. SCCA's 'liability' includes property-owner coverage, which means that SCCA insurance pays the $2000 for the messed up guard rail, not YOU.

Before you guys start tossing around insults about who has an open mind, I suggest you attempt to get some facts, rather than just the loose conjecture presented here. There is a lot of ignorance around...because it's easier to sit at your computer and carp about your latest crusade, rather than actually participate and make a little effort to understand. "Oh...I don't have time" (the 'puppies and lollypops' defense). Bullshit. I raced under 13 SCCA sanction #'s this year (along with a NASA and an EMRA weekend)...and managed to chair a SCCA race, too. Oh...and that job thing, too...and lots of other stuff.

You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts. This thread is long on the first and short on the second.

[JeffYoung]

JohnRW -- AMEN BROTHER. Thanks for that.

[gprodracer]

JohnRW,

We all truly appreciate all of your hard work in helping our club. Not many racers know how much work there is in putting on an event. But that's not the discussion here. Aside from the "facts" of what you have been doing for us, where are your "facts" about how the insurance money is split between the different areas of the club? While you say you don't get worked up over it, just because it doesn't bother you, or others, doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist. I could go on for pages with the qualifications of the many people with multiple degrees in Finance that feel that there is an issue here, and they are all 10 times smarter and more educated than I. They are only requesting that we, as paying members, should be able to see, unbiased, where our money is being spent. While I can see that some may not like the approach, I have to agree with the message.
We should all have the facts readily available, to any member who asks for them...anyone disagree with that statement?? Not starting a flame war, just expressing another opinion, because it's our club, and whether we agree or not, we all want to see us grow and prosper. Our hearts are all in the right place I think.
By the way...a show of hands....who here voted for our current SCCA President?

[charrbq]

Or the last one.

[JoshS]

[attachmentid=691]Who paid for this?
[/b]
I don't know, but if memory serves, that wasn't an SCCA event.

[Joe Harlan]

Damn you can be a pompous know it all Joe.

Please tell me, how do you know how the BoD allocates insurance costs to entry fees?

Enlighten me and open my mind. Maybe I am wrong. I truly don't believe that the BoD is having road race entry fees subsidize autox entry fees. Show me the numbers where I am wrong.

I am open to some of the scrutiny you and Matt are engaging in here, but I am telling you both, your message gets diluted by the way you present it.
[/b]


Jeff feel free to take all the shots you want. Because i don't type in a way that suits your feelings you can be as upset as you want. I have been looking into it and even went as far as running for the national BOD to prove my desire to be a part of the solution instaed of just another racer complaining about the problems. It is no secret that you and your partner don't much care for me and I am ok with that. I am ok with it to the point that I don't participate much here because it's like having a bitchy wife chsing me across the room. Raymond asked for facts and I provided documents from SCCA's own web site showing the cost and how they are split. The problem is this is about as much information as anyone can get from the club. CLub is the key word here. There is a group of people that seem to think as elected officials they own things instead of manage them. They make mistakes and nobody knows about them because they are buried in a well managed financial statement that make everyone thinnk things are A'OK. Your a lawer if I recall correctly. You clearly know how financial statements work. Questions need to be asked. It needs to be asked why we loan Pro money at below market rate and then forgive the interest on loans that aren't being repaid. These are facts! Fact is we lost a lawsuit for unfair business practices in this last year and that has been buried. So call me all the names you want but I have no other agenda than to make sure that we as racers are getting a straight up deal.

[leggwork]

About 3 years ago, I was chairing a Nat'l at a certain NEDiv track that happens to be owned by a subsidiary of a rather large racing organization that's headquartered near a famous beach in Florida. The track normally managed the Friday 'Test Day' themselves...they provide staffing...and insurance bonds...but interestingly enough, we were contacted by their representatives and asked to make the Friday Test Day an SCCA-sanctioned test day, as they knew our costs for insurance coverage (it's published on the web, afterall....) and their own insurance provider couldn't get anywhere close to the costs for insurance in the SCCA package. We provided the insurance...and continued to do this for several years, until just this year.

Think about that....probably the largest race-sanctioning organization in the western hemisphere...providing sanctions to big & little tracks all around the country...and OWNING tracks all around the country...and the 900lb. gorilla in US motorsports...one of their major subsidiaries couldn't get as good a deal as we were getting in the SCCA package.
[/b]

this is not surprising - the track's insurers are used to large, LARGE crowds (which generates the liability) at the track, so they likely don't understand enough to make the exception for just a test&tune day.
cheers,
bruce

[RSTPerformance]

Raymond, I fully understand the process. It just takes an open mind to see it.
[/b]


ok, I got the website to work... It goes to what I suspect is our Liability Insurance carier. Right?

If I am right, I still don't see how the policy (I don't see the actual policy) is broken out by event type. I DON'T GET IT... YOU DO, PLEASE EXPLAIN FOR ME AND THE REST OF US READING THESE POSTS WHOM DON'T UNDERSTAND!!! If I missed the post that explained this please refer it to me... I really don't get it, and unlitl I do, I can't make judgement.

Raymond "Truley, thanks IF you answer my question" Blethen

[Joe Harlan]

Raymond, i am serious enough about this that I will wait and not use the band width of this site up. I will be starting a forums page for use by fellow concerned members of club racing to gather and share this kind of information and to share ideas and plans on how to fix these kinds of issues. The site should be up and functional in a few days. I am not a programmer so most of this is learn as you go until I can find somebody to make it nice like this site. Thanks for your understanding.

Joe

[Bill Miller]

Link worked for me. Pete Lyon, who is Risk Manager for SCCA and therefore involved in insurance program selection, is also Director of Legal Affairs for the insurance agent who apparently supplies SCCA with its coverage.

That is odd, I agree.
[/b]


"Odd"?

Jeff,

You're a smart guy, how do you consider this anything other than conflict of interest?

[JeffYoung]

Bill, because conflicts can be waived. Because the SCCA may have set this up so that Lyon had no role in selecting the insurer. Because it may just be that Lyon's agency can provide the cheapest rates. Etc. etc. We just don't know.

It looks odd. But without knowing more, we don't know if something untoward is going on.

[JohnRW]

We all truly appreciate all of your hard work in helping our club. Not many racers know how much work there is in putting on an event. But that's not the discussion here. [/b]

I know what the discussion is here. I did not try to deflect the discussion. How did you get the impression that I was somehow wandering off the reservation ?


Aside from the "facts" of what you have been doing for us, where are your "facts" about how the insurance money is split between the different areas of the club?
[/b]

I offered no alleged "facts". If you'll read my post again, you will note that I voiced the same curiosity as you. I simply offered my experience with comparative insurance coverage. Here's a good question to ask somebody - "What does an organization like NASA spend on race liability and medical coverage for their typical race weekend ?" THAT would be a revealing answer. Pose questions first, get answers, then construct conspiracy theories, as appropriate. Some people are skipping the first two steps. I'll leave them on permanent 'ignore' mode.


I could go on for pages with the qualifications of the many people with multiple degrees in Finance that feel that there is an issue here, and they are all 10 times smarter and more educated than I.
[/b]

Ah. You've been reading all the chest-beating on the Prod site- "My dog is smarter than your dog." Same factual deficiencies there, too...not to mention a big heaping helping of demagogery. All I'm suggesting is that everyone do a little independant 'fact-checking' of what's posted on the web before flinging invective and digging shelters from the black helicopters. A little independant research blows big smoking holes into some claims made by some of the most passionate posters...so I'll continue to discount anything they say.

I'm curious and concerned about many issues of Club finance. I've posed some questions to my Area Director many times, and gotten answers that I felt were acceptable. I've voiced my opinion that Pro should get torpedoed, or at very least set adrift, even though there is a significant labor 'cost sharing' in Topeka that the Club benefits from. I'm just NOT going to start flinging crap on the internet first.

[Joe Harlan]

John, you are completely right in everything you just said. The only flaw I find is you assume that some of these questions have not been asked. You also assume that people have not been working on a solution. The only part you have seen (because it is the only public part) is what has been presented on the net out of concern that the answers have on been provided. I promise I would much rather forget about the whole deal but some of the poor choices and business practices have pushed me and many others to take action.

Thanks for your sevice to your club and I hope we can encourage more folks like you to take part.

[JohnRW]

The only flaw I find is you assume that some of these questions have not been asked. You also assume that people have not been working on a solution. [/b]

I'm curious to know how you know what I assume ? I assume nothing, and have posted no assumptions.

[RSTPerformance]

John, you are completely right in everything you just said. The only flaw I find is you assume that some of these questions have not been asked. You also assume that people have not been working on a solution. [/b]


Joe-

I personaly assume that the questions have not been asked because you have not presented any answers to the questions that should be asked. You have only posted data of which you have made assumptions that bad decisions are being made for Road Racers specificaly. I do agree that thier is a potential for a conflict of interest, but sometimes those conflicts of interest actually work to the benefit of all of our club members.

Many times clubs & businesses (of all sorts) are made up of people who have interests in specific areas that they do regular business with, thus presenting many conflicts of interest.

I look forward to your site and seeing some actual REAL facts on how the data you have presented shows an inequality to Road Racing specific club memebers.

Thanks for taking the time, please post a link to your site when it is complete;

Raymond

[ddewhurst]

Hey Joe, is Matt going to moderate your new site? :cavallo:

[Joe Harlan]

Hey Joe, is Matt going to moderate your new site? :cavallo:
[/b]

Nope, And once we have a good group of modeerators in place I will give up the keys to the door so it won't be my site.

[gprodracer]

I know what the discussion is here. I did not try to deflect the discussion. How did you get the impression that I was somehow wandering off the reservation ?

I was trying to figure out your connection between SCCA's insurance rates being better than Nascars, and the request to see how the insurance rates are divided among the seperate areas in the club.

I offered no alleged "facts".

[/color][/b]I simply asked if you had any to add to the discussion.

Here's a good question to ask somebody - "What does an organization like NASA spend on race liability and medical coverage for their typical race weekend ?" THAT would be a revealing answer. Pose questions first, get answers, then construct conspiracy theories, as appropriate. Some people are skipping the first two steps. I'll leave them on permanent 'ignore' mode.

Again, I'm obviously missing your point. What does what NASA pays for insurance have to do with wanting to know the breakdown of our insurance?



Ah. You've been reading all the chest-beating on the Prod site- "My dog is smarter than your dog." Same factual deficiencies there, too...not to mention a big heaping helping of demagogery. All I'm suggesting is that everyone do a little independant 'fact-checking' of what's posted on the web before flinging invective and digging shelters from the black helicopters. A little independant research blows big smoking holes into some claims made by some of the most passionate posters...so I'll continue to discount anything they say.

I don't play the name calling or black helicopter game. I've read the Prod site, as well as others regarding this issue. The lack of availability of financial documents disturbs me, and again, while I may not agree with the various methods of the approach, the basic questions remain.

I'm curious and concerned about many issues of Club finance. I've posed some questions to my Area Director many times, and gotten answers that I felt were acceptable. I've voiced my opinion that Pro should get torpedoed, or at very least set adrift, even though there is a significant labor 'cost sharing' in Topeka that the Club benefits from. I'm just NOT going to start flinging crap on the internet first.

I wasn't aware my posts were recieved as "flinging crap". I'm here to learn about this issue, and if I've offended anyone, well...that was not my intent.

Carry on!

Mark
[/b]

[JohnRW]

I wasn't aware my posts were recieved as "flinging crap". I'm here to learn about this issue, and if I've offended anyone, well...that was not my intent.
[/b]

Mark -

I do appreciate your posting, and I didn't accuse you of flinging crap. You've provided thoughtful discussion...which is a pleasant change to most web drivel. Please continue to participate in the discussion, but don't get sucked into the vortex of those who "accuse" first and "think" later.

Allow me to vent - The web is a lousy medium for discussion. Really. Rather than read what people actually write, readers will jump to conclusions and read meaning where none existed. Case in point: A few weeks ago, a contentious thread on race groupings and included classes erupted simultaneously on two sites - Apexspeed and Specmiata. One Apexspeed poster read a posting by a WDC SM driver and turned it into a personal crusade. "Amon" took two separate, simple declarative sentences and decided that the 'merged' meaning of the two met his own needs for argument. It went beyond being obtuse...he was being what I would describe as 'willfully ignorant'. Anyone with any dexterity with the English language could easily see that that WASN'T what was meant, or what was written, but it served "Amon's" purpose to read it that way. He refused to read it any other way than he wanted to read it.

I believe NOTHING that I read on these (or any...) boards. I'm amazed that no one fact-checks anyone when they post 'facts' or 'proof', as if 'fact-checking' is now politically incorrect or rude. That 'lack of review' leads to a wild level of demagogery. That steadfast purveyor of drivel - Mattberg - posted this last July:



THrow in a major litigation loss due to lack of knowledge of how to run an organization and STUPID actions that I warned them about prior to when they violated and became liable, ( I sent a letter and legal brief to BoD member Eric Skirmants on the risks of BoD involvement in operations and the theoretical application of Surbannes Oxley principles to non profits, backed up with an article on the same topic from the Harvard Law Review, which was obviously ignored) and the writing is pretty much on the wall. For the eight year old who listens in here... I told them not to put a wire in the electrical socket but they still wanted to try it thinking they'd get a gumball.[/b]

...but if you simply do a little research, look at the timeframe that the Fran-Am activity was in play, and then look at the legislative history of Sarbanes-Oxley (at least I know how to spell it)...and sketch out a timeline...you'll get a HUGE chuckle. Nothing lines up. The Fran-Am thing was happening before Sarbanes Oxley was even a law. Hell...ask him what the lottery #'s will be tomorrow, CUZ HE CAN SEE INTO THE FUTURE. Cue my best falsetto southern belle voice - "Oh Matt...if only we'd have listened to you...." Yeesh. I just read it, shook my head and was amazed that anyone else swallowed it without challenging it...but they did.

Back on topic - it's a 'club'. Sitting behind a computer bitching about things doesn't earn you any points. Simply running for a position doesn't earn you any points. Get involved, and actually DO something. Rant off.

[gprodracer]

JohnRW

Well written, and noted. Since you quoted only me in your post, I took the "flinging crap" comment to mean me. For the record, I am not foolish enough to believe all I read, and while I agree there are all sorts of egos and personal issues to wade thru when reading the various boards, there are also some intelligent questions that are being asked.
This is one of those issues that I can't check too many of the "facts" about, and that should concern all of us.I
I will keep looking into this issue, and will post anything of importance I find out


Thanks,

Mark

[lateapex911]

Mark -

I do appreciate your posting, and I didn't accuse you of flinging crap. You've provided thoughtful discussion...which is a pleasant change to most web drivel. Please continue to participate in the discussion, but don't get sucked into the vortex of those who "accuse" first and "think" later.

Allow me to vent - The web is a lousy medium for discussion. Really. Rather than read what people actually write, readers will jump to conclusions and read meaning where none existed. Case in point: A few weeks ago, a contentious thread on race groupings and included classes erupted simultaneously on two sites - Apexspeed and Specmiata. One Apexspeed poster read a posting by a WDC SM driver and turned it into a personal crusade. "Amon" took two separate, simple declarative sentences and decided that the 'merged' meaning of the two met his own needs for argument. It went beyond being obtuse...he was being what I would describe as 'willfully ignorant'. Anyone with any dexterity with the English language could easily see that that WASN'T what was meant, or what was written, but it served "Amon's" purpose to read it that way. He refused to read it any other way than he wanted to read it.

I believe NOTHING that I read on these (or any...) boards. I'm amazed that no one fact-checks anyone when they post 'facts' or 'proof', as if 'fact-checking' is now politically incorrect or rude. That 'lack of review' leads to a wild level of demagogery. That steadfast purveyor of drivel - Mattberg - posted this last July:



...but if you simply do a little research, look at the timeframe that the Fran-Am activity was in play, and then look at the legislative history of Sarbanes-Oxley (at least I know how to spell it)...and sketch out a timeline...you'll get a HUGE chuckle. Nothing lines up. The Fran-Am thing was happening before Sarbanes Oxley was even a law. Hell...ask him what the lottery #'s will be tomorrow, CUZ HE CAN SEE INTO THE FUTURE. Cue my best falsetto southern belle voice - "Oh Matt...if only we'd have listened to you...." Yeesh. I just read it, shook my head and was amazed that anyone else swallowed it without challenging it...but they did.

Back on topic - it's a 'club'. Sitting behind a computer bitching about things doesn't earn you any points. Simply running for a position doesn't earn you any points. Get involved, and actually DO something. Rant off. [/b]

OMF f-ing god John, that was just the most lucid and yet flat out funny post I've read in a long time on any subject!

I've stayed out of this one for the most part because there just isn't enough real info to draw conclusions, and I skim thru the posts, but yours...yours my friend, well, that warranted re-reading!

Well written, great phrasing, and jeeez....I even liked the point. Well done.

However, I do beg to differ. I think that to exclude the web as a viable medium of communication is to sell it short. I've gleaned valuable insight into the workings of our organization, and have been able to see far beyond what my eyes can discern locally. Of course, one must weed thru a mountain of agendas and drivel, but it IS possible to use the net for communication if one is able to see thru the smoke and haze, and one can turn a phrase and organize a thought or two.

Other than that, and it's a minor point, your post should have it's number retired and instantly go to the Hall of Fame for great posts ...thanks.

[gprodracer]

Damnit Jake,

We obviously need to figure out a way to disagree, even when a voice of reason posts on this board. :P
JohnRW, I hold you personally responsible. :lol:

Sorry.....Carry on ! B)

Mark

[Mattberg]

Again John tries to deflect the focus on corrupt management... :rolleyes:

First, if John were smart he would note that Sarbannes applies to public companies. I simply relayed the theoretical principles of the proposed act to a 501C as did the Harvard Law Review. THe fact of the matter is that the act became immediately effective in July of 2002, before the Fran Am filing and the act had been scratched out many years before. Legal analysts didn't start examining it only after it become law John. And if you want to call Erik Skirmants and ask him about the brief I sent him, go right ahead. The principles of Sarbannes were being bandied about since the early 90's.

Now to the real BS. I say the club abuses club racing in reference to insurance. John says "who cares, it's cheaper than NASCAR". Nice argument. Just wondering if anyone knew that solo didn't even start paying insurance until the late 90's. They had a free ride for many, many years on club racing's nickel. And John knew that. Funny he didn't mention it.

Peter Lyon is both risk manager and corporate counsel for SCCA. He is also corporate counsel for Wisenberg insurance and works out of their offices. He quotes rates for the BoD and they say yea or ney. Peter Lyon is neither licensed to do so in Kansas nor is he a member of the bar there. I have talked to the insurance commissioner's office there and that's a big no-no. Peter is also responsible for creating the "spectator" event. Made him a huge commission and was a way around raising premiums by increasing the liability rate for "spectators". Like we have spectators in any volume larger than ten years ago. :rolleyes: But the bigger problem is that club racing pays for it. THen there's one more deal. Solo has no reconcilliation for their events. That's an interesting thing because it allows regions to submit whatever they want on their audits unlike club racing which must submit a list of entries and starters. Problem is some regions got really greedy and instead of telling Topeka there were 30 entrants instead of the actual 100 they had, they decided to tell Topeka that they cancelled the event altogether. Hence, no payment due and not even a sanction fee! THat was until an SCCA official happened to be at one of those events...HAHAHA. Regional officials are such idiots.

Now I don't know what happened as a result because the employee who was working on this left SCCA before resolution, but as far as I know, nothing has been done. That irks me. Another cover up. This entire issue is about solo not paying their way and conflict of interest. It's not about SCCA insurance being affordable. It's not about the BoD's penchant for playing corporate kingpins. It's about regional officials and Topeka manipulating club racing to secure solo and other non-racing areas of the club to satisfy their own personal egos and more importantly, votes.

Jake can kiss John's ass all day long but in the end of the day he's only supporting the effort to rape club racers and use their money to support other areas of the club that provide no benefit. When the club is broke and becomes a bandit organization you can thank regional officials like John for prepetuating the SOP that got us to this point. Anyone who can read a balance sheet should be able to tell we're in real trouble. But if you take out club racing and eliminate Topeka's $4.9 M overhead, club racing would be doing just fine. Get rid of solo, the convention, University, rally and all of the rest of the crap and we'd have a nice little organization and nest egg. Find a buyer for Enterprises, start marketing Pro in a way that promotes the club and we're on the right track. Oh yea... fire 80% of the Topeka staff. They're totally useless.

One sidenote... In a story relayed to me by one employee in Topeka... I was starting to think Jeff Denhart was one of the bad guys here but I never said anything because I didn't know (John's wrong BTW. I don't accuse unless I have proof and/or support). But there's a story about how he got upset at the way club racing was being hit with so much expense yet solo and other functions were getting all the resources. He went around the office in Topeka with a tape measure to calculate what each department's allocation of expenses should be. Good for you Jeff... Bottom line is that it went nowhere. I was told that Howard Duncan, a big solo guy, put the kabash on it and left the allocation the way it was with the thumbs up from the BoD.

We're being ripped off guys and John is an agent for that ripoff. What he says is only to protect that operating procedure and continued support of non-racing functions and individuals without disruption.

And to you John... Please cite one thing I've said that isn't factual. You ask for "proof" and I've supplied the data and information. All you've done is spouted out anecdotal information and accused me of "flinging crap" and that the medium of communication is flawed. I have provided proof. You are the one "flinging crap". Time for you to prove that these things AREN'T happening.

[gprodracer]

Bump

Just to see if any progress has been made. The issue and questions still remain.

Responses anyone?

[JeffYoung]

Can someone show me that we are paying more than market rate for insurance for club racing AND that we are subsidizing autox? Or is all of this just speculation? Numbers anyone?

[Joe Harlan]

Can someone show me that we are paying more than market rate for insurance for club racing AND that we are subsidizing autox? Or is all of this just speculation? Numbers anyone?
[/b]

Jeff, I am only replying for this reason. The links to the rate sheets I provided show that SOLO pays no Liablility premium as part of their sanction.

Second there is only so much information that anyone will release on most of this stuff, You can get a financial statement that will tell you nothing but general terms. What is needed is a break down of how funds and expenses are be allocated.

I will not talk any club business here any further. There is a new site http://www.saveclubracing.com/forums

I paid for this site and once it is up and running with proper admins and mods I will turn the keys to it over to that group. The management of this club is very important and that is why thee questions are needed and should be answered fully.

[Mattberg]

Can someone show me that we are paying more than market rate for insurance for club racing AND that we are subsidizing autox? Or is all of this just speculation? Numbers anyone?
[/b]


See that? JohnRW got the topic skewed with his irrelevant comments about value... :rolleyes:

Jeff, it has NOTHING to do with rates or value. It has to do with Club Racing paying an unfair portion of the whole policy. And yes, I confirmed with a Topeka employee that Club Racing is carrying the liabiliity policy on its own. Furthermore, if you missed it, I also found out that solo paid NO insurance up until the late nineties. I am also told that many other expenses are not allocated fairly including office expenses in Topeka. Considering that Topeka is an almost $5 million expense that's pretty significant.

[JeffYoung]

Yes, I see that (on the rate sheet). My question was different, and I didn't phrase it like I should have.

Can someone show me that a RATE CHARGED BY THE INSURER FOR SOLO IS BEING PAID BY CLUB RACING?

Sorry for the all caps, I just want to be clear. The insurer (and that's not Weisenberg by the way, they are just the agent) sets the rates; the SCCA simply selects the coverages. Now, the SCCA may not carry CGL coverage for a Solo event, but that is the SCCA's choice based on a risk analysis.

[i]I just type like a bitchy wife.

[JamesB]

Jeff its the same thing I asked over the past few pages. They told me I should prove it. So I sent a letter asking if that was the case.

[Mattberg]

Yes, I see that (on the rate sheet). My question was different, and I didn't phrase it like I should have.

Can someone show me that a RATE CHARGED BY THE INSURER FOR SOLO IS BEING PAID BY CLUB RACING?

Sorry for the all caps, I just want to be clear. The insurer (and that's not Weisenberg by the way, they are just the agent) sets the rates; the SCCA simply selects the coverages. Now, the SCCA may not carry CGL coverage for a Solo event, but that is the SCCA's choice based on a risk analysis.

[i]I just type like a bitchy wife.
[/b]

Sure. Just look at the prices for a combined event where an event is run with both a club racing and solo event on the same weekend (e.g., CFR at Sebring Long Course). The charges for participants are the same as always. Now, if the liability insurance for a road racing event is more expensive, first, why would you put a solo event there without charging more (which they don't) and second, why wouldn't solo particpants be subject to a liability surcharge for holding there event at a club racing event? Pretty simple Jeff. You're a lawyer. Figure it out. The premium is already fully inclusive with the payment made by club racing. THere is no additional insurance needed because it's a blanket policy for the whole club.

[JeffYoung]

No, with all due respect, that doesn't answer the question. Combo solo/club racing events are rare. The insurer may just look at the combined event, see little additional risk in having them run together and and cover the solo event at no additional cost.

Matt, the flaw in your is that you are assuming the SCCA is charging the racers something different than the insurance company is charging the SCCA. That we don't know and I also agree that it would be nice if the SCCA gave us documents to show this one way or the other.

It is entirely possible (and probably likely) that it is the insurer who sees Solo as far less risky and charges less.

EDIT -- what you guys need to do to convince me and others to your cause (and I'm not saying you are wrong) is to find out:

a. What the insurer is charging the SCCA on a per event basis. Basically you need to get the policy and the premium information.

b. Then compare that to sheet on the webpage.

If they are different, I agree, Houson, we may have a problem.

But where your analysis goes off track is if the SCCA is simply passing the actual cost charged by the insurance company to the SCCA onto the racer.

[Mattberg]

Jeff, no offense but it's like talking to a wall. I thought you were an attorney. It has NOTHING to do with the "danger" of the activity and risk to participants. THat's why it costs more to insure an auto show than a race. WHy is this so difficult to understand? As an attorney you should be more than familiar with the potential cost of a personal injury suit versus a capped medical benefit claim. It's about the "slip and fall" and legal costs not how fast any one is going.

Now with that said, why would road racers pay $15 per driver for liability insurance and solo racers $0 for the same coverage at an event at the same track on the same weekend? Why did solo pay nothing until the late nineties? THese are not anything you have to see a policy for. ANd I can tell you that you are not a lawyer if you think an insurer is going to say "what the heck" we're not going to charge any extra. That's the most ridiculous thing I may have ever heard. One policy for liability is paid by club. It covers everybody but only we pay for it. I've already confirmed that with an ex-employee of the club.

I'm not sure why you're trying so hard to defend the position of the solo people.

[Mattberg]

And one more thing outside of the insurance...

Why is the entry fee for the club racer the same with the solo event added? Why isn't the entry fee reduced by the amount of "rent" solo should pay for the track time at OUR event? Bottom line is solo got all their regular medical coverage for their meager $4.50 and got their track for free along with their liability insurance! THis has become an ongoing practice by regions and a few have been nailed for it others haven't. All the solo money that comes in goes directly to the region and NEVER benefits road racers. It's a classic case of welfare. I don't think people driving sports cars for fun should be entitled to welfare and certainly not at the expense of those who don't even know it's happening. At minimum full disclosure is required. Personally, I would not attend an event where solo was getting a free ride like this.

[JeffYoung]

Last time, and then I am done with this.

Please believe that I understand and deal with multi-million dollar CGL, Auto, OCIP, Comp, Auto and other insurance policies every day. Please believe that I have some understanding of how these policies work. If you don't, you don't and it's just time to end the discussion.

You continue to seem to think that the SCCA is setting the rate charged for insurance. You see $15 charged to racers and $0 to Solo drivers at the same event and immediately think the racers are getting screwed.

What you are missing is that it may not be the SCCA that is setting these rates and not charging Solo anything for CGL. The insurer MAY (I don't know and I haven't seen anything from you either) simply not charge CGL for the event. Or, the SCCA may be making the decision that the risk to non-participants from slip and fall type events that result in a lawsuit against the SCCA is low enough that they don't carry specific coverage for it. You are probably correct that there is one policy for the club, but the calculation of premium is done by the insurer based on what the club does -- meaning solo I, solo II, road racing, rally etc. If the SCCA is simply mirroring the insurer's rate calculation when it sets the amounts it charges road racers and solo guys per car, then there is no "screwing" going on.

There are many, many things that you simply aren't understanding or considering here. All you do is look at $15 for racers, $0 for Solo and conclude that racers are getting screwed. That's just not the case. You need to know more before you jump -- and it is a jump -- to that conclusion. That is all I am saying. We don't have enough information to make the conclusion you are making.

Why am I defending the solo crowd? I don't think that is what I am doing. I think I am trying to defuse some of the "black helicopter" mentality I see in most of what you post. Not everyone is out to screw you or the things you are interested in. Some are, and you may even be right about some of the things you post. But, you do it with logical leaps and attacks that really, really, detract from what you are trying to do.

We met in person at school at Roebling, and you seemed like a very decent guy -- helped me some with some issues with my car, and I think I leant you a tap and die set. That's the guy I wish would post here, instead of the constant accusations that someone in Alabama is trying to screw you out of races or that you want to fight someone at the annual meeting or that you know more about insurance than anyone here.

That's all I'm saying. Signing off.

[RSTPerformance]

click the link to see the correct smiley for this post... (http://www.xboxaddict.com/forums/images/smilies/banghead.gif)

hi, my name is Matt... I am actually the wall, why is everyone beating me up??? oh yeah, cause I bring up topics I have no clue about simply to stirr the pot. I prove that by not answering any questions, get any facts to back my statments and by claiming discussions with ex-members of the club, whom also probably have a scewed bad opinion about the club.

Raymond "Now the only question I have (cause I lost interest in yet another lame topic that has no merit that you started) is... who will finally bring down the wall?" Blethen

[Mattberg]

Ok... Let's go back to square one and take it in baby steps...

The track/facility requires liability insurance proof. Solo or club racing, it doesn't matter. THey could care less if a competitor makes himself a greasy spot on the road but they worry about lawsuits from those not part of the waiver or involved in an accident unrelated to the accepted participation in an ultra-hazardous activity. So, SCCA issues an insurance certificate for the event. And BTW, this is actually duplicate coverage as the track also has coverage. Anyway, that coverage is detailed in the SCCA insurance handbook. Who sets the rates is unimportant as the SCCA is the one who sends the bill. If the SCCA is undercharging or overcharging is a whole different matter. Now, I've already confirmed through an employee that solo rides our liability insurance and without it they couldn't hold an event. Do you really think that the insurance company, in this day and age, simply covers solo for free? Do you think they allow a certificate of insurance and coverage for liability at no cost? Really guys, that's not realistic. If you're telling me you can insure against liability any arbitrary event free of charge, I want you to be my insurance carrier.

Down to brass tacks... there is one policy. Policy OGLG21749771 managed by Arcadia Insurance. The carriers listed are Ace Insurance and Markel Insurance. I would assume from what I've read that Markel provides the health policy while Ace provides the liability coverage, or possibly ACE is just a reinsurer although I'd doubt that given they're listed on the policy as a provider. It really doesn't matter. So we're back to the same spot. With one policy that guarantees coverage for solo vis-a-vis a certificate required by the track or facility proving CGL coverage, your contention is that club racing pays the whole bill because the insurance company are nice guys and don't charge solo? That's pretty naive. THe numbers sure don't show that but I'll get to that in a minute. FUrthermore, if you think that liability insurance for a club racing event should be ten times what it is for a solo event I guess there's no use talking about it because you're in a dream world. An event is an event. There is no more chance of me slipping on a wet bathroom floor at Daytona or a Denny's. THe disparity of rates is unexplainable other than your route which is that the insurance company doesn't worry about solo. Fine. Eliminate them from use of our CGL certificate and get the policy requoted. I will bet you your house Jeff, that they won't issue a certificate for a solo event.

Also, and I'm sure this comes as no shock, after examining the insurance documents I'm pretty sure that we cover and pay for pro racing as well. THere are no rates quoted for pro but the coverage includes them AND their spectators. THe club won't release the exact numbers but in some quick calculations, given the entries for all events and examination of the P&L statement it sure looks like club racing is paying for everybody on a single policy. THe handbook contains no reference to any other policy. I find it hard to believe the the club racing department is paying close to $1.4M a year for club racing alone for $5 million in liability and $1M in medical coverage just for club racers. Doesn't that seem a little odd to you? THat's like paying $200,000 a year for your auto insurance, unless of course, you were insuring everbody on your block. ;) The quick and dirty math has club racers paying roughly $300 a year each for insurance, which by the way is no longer primary, but supplementary coverage and most of us are already insured. Most of the claims paid by the club insurance come from non-racers such as officials, workers and solo people, a fact I checked with Topeka. So, if you do 5 events, that's $60 per race you pay for insurance you probably already have. Think about that next time you pay an entry fee. Anyway you look at it the numbers don't add up correctly. Forget about the rates and just look at the inequity of the distribution of payments.

Lastly, much of this has much more far reaching implications, most importantly, our 501C status. THere's way more to this than simply your trying to classify the whole thing as "black helicopters". The inclusion of pro racing is most worrisome. But as I said, the documentation is sketchy there so I can't be sure but the numbers point to that scenario. End of the day, solo gets liability coverage and your only argument is that the insurance company gives it to them for free. I think that's what you should prove.

[Joe Harlan]

Raymond, Jeff and Matt, Let me remove my tin foil cap long enough to type this.

The only financial information we have to work from is the published information. The July fastrack on SCCA.com has a financial statement and it list insurance cost at 1.5 million dollars and offers no break down of how it is split. The insurance publication on that same site gives a break down of how it is charged to a region for sanctions. That is the information we have. I will continue to work to get exact answers as to how that expense is divided. I don't want to continue to waste bandwith on the IT site over this deal. http://www.saveclubracing.com is the place to continue this discussion and the place any FACTs will be posted in the end.

[jjjanos]

Jeff, no offense but it's like talking to a wall. I thought you were an attorney. It has NOTHING to do with the "danger" of the activity and risk to participants. THat's why it costs more to insure an auto show than a race. WHy is this so difficult to understand? As an attorney you should be more than familiar with the potential cost of a personal injury suit versus a capped medical benefit claim. It's about the "slip and fall" and legal costs not how fast any one is going. [/b]

Little lesson on insurance:

Premium = Expected Payout + Insurer Profit
Expected Payout = Summation(Probabilty of Incident I x Expected Payout if Incident I occurs)
Expected Payout Incident I = Integrated P(I) x $P(I)

Example: Probability of a car going into a spectator area * Expected Payout car into spectator area
Expected payout: $0xP(i) + $1xP(i) + ..... + all the money you can shake a stick at and the stick too x P(i)
Where: Summation of the Probabilities for a given incident = 1

More people at an event increases the probability of a payout
Higher speed increases the probability of a payout and increases the range of payouts
Cars involved in head-to-head competition increases the probability of a payout

An auto show costs more to insure because the larger number of people increases the probability that there will be a payout.
A club race costs more to insure because the higher speeds and the element of direct car-to-car racing increases the probability that there will be a payout. In addition, the higher speeds also makes for a wider distribution of payouts, also increasing the cost of insurance.

In addition, your statement that participants cannot sue is incorrect. A waiver only makes it harder to win, it does not keep it from happening. I guarantee you that if an open-wheel car submarines under an improperly installed/maintained piece of armco at a certain track in New York, the estate of the deceased would win. I believe the term is gross negligance - that track KNOWS what happens when armco is bad and allowing someone to race with bad armco would be gross negligance.

[Mattberg]

I already made the comment earlier in the thread that gross negligence would very possibly and most likely negate the waiver and litgation against the insured, but without such a scenario, there is little probability of such. It has been tried over and over again for many years without success. The last case I know of was a young girl killed by a hockey puck a few years back.

AS far as the payout, the calculations you present are fine but remember that the risk for everything but liability are also capped at five time less than liability which given the aformention scenario is improbable. It's about legal fees and the fact that they can and will happen without any real correlation to the activity. A single lawsuit can go beyond the maximum payout with relative ease just in legal fees very fast. So as I said, and as you stated, it is the potential payout that is of concern to the insurance company. And just for the record, I would think that THe probability of a car flying into spectators is significantly greater at a solo event as there is little or no restriction, protection or fencing in most cases. See the video posted earlier. FUrthermore, UNLESS you have that gross negligence element the likelihood you'd be able to sue is probably not going to exist even as a spectator given no act of negligence. As far as head to head competition? Same deal. Medical yes, liability no.

BTW. Do you have any proof that higher speeds are or have ever been a cause for any liability claim or payouts given no negligence? It sounds to me like you're presenting more of an analysis or analogy to personal auto insurance and the way liability is alculated there versus specialty event insurance with acceptance of risk for the activity.

The liability insurance is based on ending up in court, not a hospital. Case in point is the SCCA's latest blunder which didn't even involve an event or injury, just the liability for unfair business practices of certain of our BoD members. The cost: an extimated $6 million. More than any other claim has ever cost the club.

And don't forget... Legal fees are not affected by any policy limits.

[Matt Rowe]

And just for the record, I would think that THe probability of a car flying into spectators is significantly greater at a solo event as there is little or no restriction, protection or fencing in most cases. See the video posted earlier. FUrthermore, UNLESS you have that gross negligence element the likelihood you'd be able to sue is probably not going to exist even as a spectator given no act of negligence. [/b]

And in my experience there are virtually no spectator Solo events. Every one I've been to or been aware of (excluding the Solo National) has been a non-spectator event in which case everyone on the property is required to sign the waiver to be at the site. So assuming the waiver offers the protection against all but gross negligence that both you and risk management seem to agree with, why would Solo have significant liability exposure? Now for those cases where the event is advertised as a spectator event the insurance sheet does call out an additional charge which could theoretically be applied to the additional liability exposure.

Based on how the process has been described to me there is a single policy negotiated with the insurer based on ALL of the club activities which includes club racing, solo, rally cross and so on. The negotiation takes into account event types, past history of number of events, car counts, participation and previous claims and issues. The insurer then provides a total for the ENTIRE policy and then risk management submits a proposal to the BOD that approves the insurance fee schedule. That last part is where there is some potential disconnect as the distribution of fees is supposedly determined by risk management's perception of where the expenses are derived from. In theory those estimates should be in line with the insurers assessment but the explanation I have been given implies the actual quote does not contain enough detail to verify this.

Finally, Matt you've commented to others that their assessment of liability risks is based on theory more than actual numbers. I would challenge that you are also making assumptions and would guess based on some of your comments that you have relatively little experience with Solo events and are ill equipped to make judgements on liability. For example, in my experience it is far more likely for a car to endanger people at a club race than a solo event and when it does happen the people at a solo event are signed on a SCCA waiver while club racing has a significant chance the person is not signed on any waiver, or only a track waiver. But beyond that the layout and safety assessments of solo course has guidelines to limit that type of exposure and SCCA's track record of following those guidelines provides data used during the risk assessment.

[jjjanos]

I already made the comment earlier in the thread that gross negligence would very possibly and most likely negate the waiver and litgation against the insured, but without such a scenario, there is little probability of such.[/b]

A .1% probability of a $2mn payout equates to a premium of $2,000 for the event. The product of a small probability/high cost event results in a high expected payout. It is these exact scenarios that drive the freaking insurance cost.


It has been tried over and over again for many years without success. The last case I know of was a young girl killed by a hockey puck a few years back.[/b]

How much was paid out to the families killed by a flying wheel at Charlotte and MIS?

Every club track we race on that isn't lined with the prison fencing is open to charges of gross negligence if debris kills or injures someone in the supposedly "cold" areas. Why? Because the events at Charlotte and MIS demonstrate that fencing below a certain height is insufficient to prevent debris from injuring spectators.


AS far as the payout, the calculations you present are fine but remember that the risk for everything but liability are also capped at five time less than liability which given the aformention scenario is improbable.[/b] And it is the improbable that drives the cost. That's the very definition of insurance! You insure for the RARE events. If I know with CERTAINTY that my house will burn down every third year, then it isn't fire insurance - it's called a savings account.

Solo events are by definition NON-SPECTATOR.

The video posted earlier demonstrates NOTHING unless and until you provide evidence that this was an SCCA-sanctioned event.

Head-to-head competition increases the likelihood of a medical payout. How many drivers get transported to the hospital at a Solo versus Club Racing? Use your experience with the Club as the basis of your rants.


Do you have any proof that higher speeds are or have ever been a cause for any liability claim or payouts given no negligence? It sounds to me like you're presenting more of an analysis or analogy to personal auto insurance and the way liability is alculated there versus specialty event insurance with acceptance of risk for the activity. [/b]

You bring up the subject of gross liability. I only mentioned that H2H and high speeds increase the probability of a payout and the amount of the payout. Evidence? Have you EVER been at a race? Have you ever been at a Solo?

Think about it... which has a greater likelihood of generating a medical claim - a collision at 30MPH or a collision at 140MPH? Which is likely to cause the greatest damage to the driver - a 30MPH collision or a 140MPH collision?

As for the issue of medical insurance being secondary...Hardly! Many people do not have medical insurance - look around in the paddock. Medical insurance often has annual caps on payout. It has co-pays/deductibles which, I believe, the SCCA insurance pays. It has lifetime caps. It does not cover LTC beyond 30 days (typically). April 2006, we had a corner worker fall out of a tub and break his leg. He just (Dec 2006) had more surgery. Given the nature of his injuries - he is entitled to LTC coverage. His medical reimbursement policy DOESN'T cover that, but, I believe, SCCA's needs to.


Case in point is the SCCA's latest blunder which didn't even involve an event or injury, just the liability for unfair business practices of certain of our BoD members. The cost: an extimated $6 million. More than any other claim has ever cost the club.[/b]

Point is moot as it has nothing to do with the event insurance.

Since it is clear that you are so unhappy with the way the organization is run, the decisions made by the various committees that are staffed by its members and believe that the people who staff the events have it "out" for you and family... why don't you just quit and go race with another club until you get peeved at them too?

[zchris]

WOOO guys. I believe Matt is really just asking for disclosure from the club. His method leaves something to be desired. But I to would like full disclosure from the club were my money goes also. I to am so beyond pissed off that we gave money to Pro again also. Its time the club inspires a little confidence in its membership by showing us were the money goes in the uncooked version of the books. And anyone who has run a business knows that all books spend a little time on the stove. To think different is just foolish.
Chris Howard

[dickita15]

His method leaves something to be desired. [/b]

wow is that the understatement of the friggin year.

from a sometimes fat lazy donut eating official.

[ddewhurst]

Chris, when things are slow in Matt's business he finds a new SCCA subject to rag about. Within one of has bitch fests :014: he was going to bisect FL. from the U.S. & start his own club. :cavallo:

Have Fun ;)
David

ps: Face to face he really is a great guy. & loves his brewskis. His presentation skills are suited to the type business he operates.

[dickita15]

David you are so right, as much contempt as have for how Matt acts on the web, even I have enjoyed standing around a fire in the paddock with a beer debating him. But that does not excuse his ridiculous, insulting behavior on these web sites.

[JeffYoung]

I know guys -- it was amazing to me when I learned the infamous Matt Berg was the really nice guy I hung out with at Roebling during school. Matt, you sometimes make good points. You just got to work on the cipherin' and persuadin' skillz.

[Joe Harlan]

And in my experience there are virtually no spectator Solo events. Every one I've been to or been aware of (excluding the Solo National) has been a non-spectator event in which case everyone on the property is required to sign the waiver to be at the site. So assuming the waiver offers the protection against all but gross negligence that both you and risk management seem to agree with, why would Solo have significant liability exposure? Now for those cases where the event is advertised as a spectator event the insurance sheet does call out an additional charge which could theoretically be applied to the additional liability exposure.

Based on how the process has been described to me there is a single policy negotiated with the insurer based on ALL of the club activities which includes club racing, solo, rally cross and so on. The negotiation takes into account event types, past history of number of events, car counts, participation and previous claims and issues. The insurer then provides a total for the ENTIRE policy and then risk management submits a proposal to the BOD that approves the insurance fee schedule. That last part is where there is some potential disconnect as the distribution of fees is supposedly determined by risk management's perception of where the expenses are derived from. In theory those estimates should be in line with the insurers assessment but the explanation I have been given implies the actual quote does not contain enough detail to verify this.

Finally, Matt you've commented to others that their assessment of liability risks is based on theory more than actual numbers. I would challenge that you are also making assumptions and would guess based on some of your comments that you have relatively little experience with Solo events and are ill equipped to make judgements on liability. For example, in my experience it is far more likely for a car to endanger people at a club race than a solo event and when it does happen the people at a solo event are signed on a SCCA waiver while club racing has a significant chance the person is not signed on any waiver, or only a track waiver. But beyond that the layout and safety assessments of solo course has guidelines to limit that type of exposure and SCCA's track record of following those guidelines provides data used during the risk assessment.
[/b]


Matt, This is exactly what is being questioned once you get by al l the other BS....The club buys a block of insurance and then through MR Lyons and a BOD evaluation those fees are divided across the different business modules in the club. My point and I believe others point are that the burden is being overly paid for by club racing. That is reflected in the fact that the is NO liability fee being charged to SOLO in the insurance forms that I posted the link to.

Next let me say, SOLO is not a spectator sport by nature but it is held in open parking lots that have little control over who walks up and becomes a possible hazard. I have requested an insurance quote from a major company for my business to hold a private RR and a private solo. I hope to get an answer back in the next few days. I was told either event would have a liability policy on them.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, last time, but I will try again. The price of the block of insurance is based on risk. Risk arises from teh activities involved. Some portion of the price of the block of insurance comes from Solo. We don't know what, and that number is set by the insurer not the SCCA.

If the SCCA is charging a higher percentage of overall insurance costs to the road racer than the amount of premium generated by road racing risk, then you guys have a point. If not, you don't.

[Mattberg]

How much was paid out to the families killed by a flying wheel at Charlotte and MIS?[/b]

Not sure but I personally know someone who was hit by debris at a roundy pounder and came up empty handed sfter trying. Again, all depends on gross negligence.



Solo events are by definition NON-SPECTATOR.[/b]


That's not true. Read the rate card. I walked into one without even a question asked. Never showed my license or any form of ID. Nothing. As far as there being specatators versus waiver signing members, I'd say there are more of the latter at a club racing event where you have to be a member to get into a lot of events and the rules, restrictions and security are far greater. And how many spectators do we get at a club race who aren't members? 3? THere's a heck of a lot of non-members walking around solo events. I went to one at a park in Ft. Lauderdale. Not only were there no fences but there were two soccer fields and probably a couple hundred people participating in a youth soccer tournament not more than 50 feet away from the blacktop. I doubt any of them had signed a waiver.



The video posted earlier demonstrates NOTHING unless and until you provide evidence that this was an SCCA-sanctioned event. [/b]

Now that's nonsense. Why? You talked about probability. What does it have to do with who put the event on? Conversely, show me an SCCA club race where a car flew into a crowd. THat was the third or fourth video I've seen just this month where a car went off "track" on an unrestricted, unfenced solo type course with spectators in succeptible areas. Never seen it in club racing although I heard there was a close call at a NEDIV race this year. The fence apparently did its job. Unfortunately most high school parking lots don't have that type of restrictive protection.



Head-to-head competition increases the likelihood of a medical payout. How many drivers get transported to the hospital at a Solo versus Club Racing? Use your experience with the Club as the basis of your rants.
You bring up the subject of gross liability. I only mentioned that H2H and high speeds increase the probability of a payout and the amount of the payout. Evidence? Have you EVER been at a race? Have you ever been at a Solo?[/b]

Again. I'm not talking about medical. There is no legal exposure there. Legal expenses are not capped nor is there any limit on coverage for legal fees. Without gross negligence, the risk is dramatically reduced.



Think about it... which has a greater likelihood of generating a medical claim - a collision at 30MPH or a collision at 140MPH? Which is likely to cause the greatest damage to the driver - a 30MPH collision or a 140MPH collision?[/b]

A medical claim? Sure, I've already agreed. A capped medical claim versus an unlimited legal liability claim is what we're addressing. Damage to the driver is irrelevant. Damage to the insurance company is what you have to look at. I have seen maybe ten serious accidents since I first started with SCCA in the 60's and one of them was me. I'd bet if you took all the claims from those incidents, three of which were fatal, the claims wouldn't add up to a single bathroom slip and fall claim that went into litigation.



As for the issue of medical insurance being secondary...Hardly! Many people do not have medical insurance - look around in the paddock. Medical insurance often has annual caps on payout. It has co-pays/deductibles which, I believe, the SCCA insurance pays. It has lifetime caps. It does not cover LTC beyond 30 days (typically). April 2006, we had a corner worker fall out of a tub and break his leg. He just (Dec 2006) had more surgery. Given the nature of his injuries - he is entitled to LTC coverage. His medical reimbursement policy DOESN'T cover that, but, I believe, SCCA's needs to.[/b]

Exactly my point. First, that tub accident will likely cost more than most on-track incidents and the probability had nothing to do with fast cars or H2H competition. Is a club racing participant more likely to fall in the tub than a solo participant? Second, can that person sue? No.

[charrbq]

Conversely, show me an SCCA club race where a car flew into a crowd. Second, can that person sue? No.
[/b]
Road Atlanta several years ago during the Runoffs. Two GT cars got together in turn three ripping the flares from both. Cars became open wheeled and ramped over tires, over the substantial dirt wall, over the fence, and into the parking area on top of a worker's car. No significant injuries to people, but you wanted an example. Second, anyone can sue anyone for just about any reason anytime. Whether it makes it through court is another matter. In the mean time, attorneys, courts, and the associated fees are involved.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, last time, but I will try again. The price of the block of insurance is based on risk. Risk arises from teh activities involved. Some portion of the price of the block of insurance comes from Solo. We don't know what, and that number is set by the insurer not the SCCA.

If the SCCA is charging a higher percentage of overall insurance costs to the road racer than the amount of premium generated by road racing risk, then you guys have a point. If not, you don't.
[/b]


Jeff I am not dense, I get waht you are trying to say but read Matt Rowes post and think about what he is saying. The liabilty risk for SOLO is not zero but that is what they effectively are being charged. That is on the SCCA insurance rate sheet. Second even if the divsion of the rate is determined by the insurer there is still a problem The insurer is the employer of our risk/legal counsel.

Would it not take all of this speculation out if these numbers were properly disclosed to the membership that pays them?

[jjjanos]

Not sure but I personally know someone who was hit by debris at a roundy pounder and came up empty handed sfter trying. Again, all depends on gross negligence.[/b]

Then I would suggest that this person neither had out-of-pocket medical expenses nor filed a law suit.


I walked into one without even a question asked. Never showed my license or any form of ID.[/b]

That would make you a trespasser.


Nothing. As far as there being specatators versus waiver signing members, I'd say there are more of the latter at a club racing event where you have to be a member to get into a lot of events and the rules, restrictions and security are far greater. And how many spectators do we get at a club race who aren't members? 3? [/b]

Summit Point draws between 300-1000 spectators per SCCA race weekend.


Not only were there no fences but there were two soccer fields and probably a couple hundred people participating in a youth soccer tournament not more than 50 feet away from the blacktop. I doubt any of them had signed a waiver.[/b]

1. I doubt your estimate of distance. 50 feet is about the length of a 1950s-era house. No qualified solo safety steward would allow the course that close to civilians.


Now that's nonsense. Why? You talked about probability. What does it have to do with who put the event on?[/b]

WHO puts on the event GREATLY influences both the probability of a claim and the distribution of payouts from that claim. The video you showed is striking proof of that since it almost certainly is not an SCCA event. The operational rules influence the likelihood of an event. The safety rules influence the distribution of payouts.



Conversely, show me an SCCA club race where a car flew into a crowd. [/b]

Jim Epting Flying Into Crowd Area On Main Straight (http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/results.cgi/results/index.htm?990401)

Summit Point Grandstand Story (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8984)


THat was the third or fourth video I've seen just this month where a car went off "track" on an unrestricted, unfenced solo type course with spectators in succeptible areas.[/b]

Any of them SCCA solos? If not, your "evidence" is sucking wind.



A capped medical claim versus an unlimited legal liability claim is what we're addressing. Damage to the driver is irrelevant. Damage to the insurance company is what you have to look at. I have seen maybe ten serious accidents since I first started with SCCA in the 60's and one of them was me. I'd bet if you took all the claims from those incidents, three of which were fatal, the claims wouldn't add up to a single bathroom slip and fall claim that went into litigation.[/b]

1. So you freely admit that your rant has no basis in fact? You don't have any idea what the claims experience is for SCCA, yet you are convinced that the liability from Club Racing is less than Solo?

2. Damage to the driver IS RELEVANT. If the driver is injured because of negligence - say for example improper tire wall construction and the track has been "approved" by SCCA, then the SCCA can be sued. The waiver doesn't mean squat if negligence is involved. Gross negligence only means the award will be larger.

You obviously are correct. SCCA is screwing the Club Racers by overcharging for insurance. In fact, I believe they intend to readjust the insurance rates so that anyone with the letters G,B,R or E in their last name will pay 100% of the insurance charges. <_<

[lateapex911]

Video?? I missed video?? Were there chicks in it?? THATs what this thread needs!!!

Grid Girls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But the sad part is our INSURANCE regs won&#39;t allow us SCCA types to have this:

[JeffYoung]

Joe, I agree, having the SCCA disclose the premium paid to the insurer and the manner in which it is calculated would be helpful. Has anyone asked for it and been turned down?

Somewhere above I posted about why there may not be a premium for liability coverage for solo. The insurer may consider the risk low enough that they offer that coverage for free as part of the overall package sold to the SCCA. Or, SCCA may simply not carry CGL for Solo events since the risk is (possibly) low. There&#39;s more to it than "there&#39;s no charge for liability insurance for Solo participants thus road racers are getting screwed."

Last, is it possible that the region putting on the event is picking up the tab on the CGL coverage for a solo event? I have no idea, just a thought.

[Joe Harlan]

Video?? I missed video?? Were there chicks in it?? THATs what this thread needs!!!

Grid Girls!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But the sad part is our INSURANCE regs won&#39;t allow us SCCA types to have this:
[/b]

Jake I don&#39;t think it&#39;s the insurance folks that won&#39;t let you have that....:)

[lateapex911]

Jake I don&#39;t think it&#39;s the insurance folks that won&#39;t let you have that.... :)
[/b]

Huh? Was I just slammed ? ;) :birra:

[Joe Harlan]

Huh? Was I just slammed ? ;) :birra:
[/b]
Only in the spirit of the season.... :snow_cool:

[ddewhurst]

I propose that no one posts any more to this thread. Let Joe & Matt get THEIR facts & then THEY can post THEIR factual results.

Who will second this?

I be gone ;) & I ain&#39;t reading any more of this I supose this & that.

David

[JohnRW]

Come on, David...I&#39;ve been busy but I want to get another kick in before the holidays.

Tuning back in here…I see that the speculation is still in full &#39;speckle&#39;. Any of you read the story of the "Blind Men and the Elephant" ? Here&#39;s a poetic version by John Godfrey Saxe…take a moment and read it…we&#39;ll wait for you…

http://www.cs.rice.edu/~ssiyer/minstrels/poems/1179.html

…Back already ? Good. Enjoy that ? Any of that sound familiar ? "Don&#39;t take an elephant&#39;s toenail and turn it into a Croca-dillo-saur". Matt has attempted to do that, and seems to take umbrage when people point that out. Nobody here…NOBODY…has any understanding of how the insurance costs are apportioned. It&#39;s pure speculation to say that "Solo gets a free ride" or "Pro gets a free ride", and there is no reason to think that anyone could discern it from reading the financial statements.

Civil questions to ask of your Director, if you&#39;re a member and you&#39;re concerned about this:
1.)Does Pro make a per-event or per-sanction payment to SCCA Risk Management, just like Club Racing Regions ? If not, are they acquiring any coverages thru the &#39;headline act&#39; at the venues on their schedule ? (for example – if they&#39;re on the bill with ALMS, do they have a deal with ALMS to be included on the ALMS bond ?)
2.)What role does the Pro event PROMOTER play in providing venue liability coverage ?
3.)What is the loss-history of Solo, and is it so low that the liability coverage cost is insignificant ? It doesn&#39;t matter if we think it&#39;s dangerous or safe…it&#39;s all up to loss-history, and a bunch of actuaries sitting in a cube farm someplace.

Now…Matt claims to have done "detective work"…and he&#39;s talked to "Deep Topeka", inside HQ…and I giggle:


Down to brass tacks... there is one policy. Policy OGLG21749771 managed by Arcadia Insurance. The carriers listed are Ace Insurance and Markel Insurance. I would assume from what I&#39;ve read that Markel provides the health policy while Ace provides the liability coverage, or possibly ACE is just a reinsurer although I&#39;d doubt that given they&#39;re listed on the policy as a provider. [/b]

Well…no, actually. There are several policies that provide the coverage for a Club Racing Event. He&#39;s cited the Policy number for &#39;General Liability&#39;. Impressive stuff, huh ? He&#39;s missed the "Participant Accident" policy, and the "Excess/Umbrella Liability" policy…separate policies…separate policy numbers. There are other carriers too, in addition to Ace and Markel. Oh…and he got the primary &#39;producer&#39; – Arcadia – wrong. (you seem to have a problem with spelling, as we&#39;ve seen before). It&#39;s "Acordia". Not particularly hard detective work…ALL that information - and more - appears on every insurance certificate that event organizers get from SCCA Risk Management. They&#39;re produced by the boat-load for each race, and basically handed to everyone who asks for one – the track, the service providers, the Stewards, etc. I&#39;m sitting here looking at a stack of them. He&#39;s YET to furnish any information that ISN&#39;T commonly available…and what he&#39;s gotten, he&#39;s gotten wrong. But…HE KNOWS "DEEP TOPEKA" !!!! Cool, huh ?

Now…just catching up on "old business" –


And to you John... Please cite one thing I&#39;ve said that isn&#39;t factual. You ask for "proof" and I&#39;ve supplied the data and information. [/b]

and then…


We&#39;re being ripped off guys and John is an agent for that ripoff. What he says is only to protect that operating procedure and continued support of non-racing functions and individuals without disruption.[/b]

Whoa……Coooool…..I&#39;m part of a conspiracy. I&#39;m working on my diabolical laugh. MP3&#39;s posted soon. Matt being "factual", obviously…but it sure as hell sounds like conjecture to me.


Just wondering if anyone knew that solo didn&#39;t even start paying insurance until the late 90&#39;s. They had a free ride for many, many years on club racing&#39;s nickel. And John knew that. Funny he didn&#39;t mention it. [/b]

Wow…I knew that, huh ? That&#39;s a mighty big accusation. Care to back it up, Matt ? I&#39;ve never competed in a Solo with ANY sanctioning body, never even &#39;worked&#39; at a Solo. My only Solo exposure has been "stopping by on a Sunday morning to drop off tires or parts to a racer who was testing stuff". Nice fabrication, Matt.

Then there is also this:


THen there&#39;s one more deal. Solo has no reconcilliation for their events. That&#39;s an interesting thing because it allows regions to submit whatever they want on their audits unlike club racing which must submit a list of entries and starters. [/b]

Now…I don&#39;t know jack about Solo…but it took me all of seven (7) (siete) (VII) minutes to go look at the SCCA insurance handbook and find the post-event audit forms that the Solo guys prepare. As I&#39;ve mentioned, I&#39;ve done post-event audits for races a lot, and the forms and procedures look remarkably similar. Matt is just wrong…again. From listening to our own Region Treasurer review post-event Solo audits, I know that Topeka does require them, just as they do from Club Racing. Club Racing does NOT require "entries and starters" as part of the post-event insurance and sanction audit…I oughta know…I&#39;ve submitted a bunch of those audits. A little basic research would have helped Matt, but it&#39;s obviously more fun to just make stuff up. And this:


Now to the real BS. I say the club abuses club racing in reference to insurance. John says "who cares, it&#39;s cheaper than NASCAR". Nice argument. [/b]

Didn&#39;t ever say that. Nice fabrication…again. ISC uses the same insurance underwriters that SCCA does. A limited number of insurance providers write coverage for motorsports.. They price the policies based on the coverage and the loss histories of the types of events. The "NASCAR insurance doesn&#39;t fit" statement is a non sequitur.

And then finally…


First, if John were smart he would note that Sarbannes applies to public companies. I simply relayed the theoretical principles of the proposed act to a 501C as did the Harvard Law Review. THe fact of the matter is that the act became immediately effective in July of 2002, before the Fran Am filing and the act had been scratched out many years before. Legal analysts didn&#39;t start examining it only after it become law John. And if you want to call Erik Skirmants and ask him about the brief I sent him, go right ahead. The principles of Sarbannes were being bandied about since the early 90&#39;s. [/b]

Nice attempt at a squirm. Read the original post – trying to take credit for an advanced warning. Now, it seems, he just "simply relayed the theoretical principles…". Oh…just the theoretical principles…not anything specific...just generalities. Nice dodge. As to it applying to publicly traded companies…yeah…then why did you bring it up in the first place ? Why not include 6-sigma or the Taft-Hartley Act, since you were on a roll ? You might as well have cited the Yale Journal of Public Health, the catalog of the Library of Congress…and One-Hour Martinizing, too. If you&#39;re going to pile it on, always pile DEEP. The actions that precipitated the Fran-Am filing happened well before SOX was enacted…but HEY…might as well take a shot at taking credit for an advanced warning, huh ?

Try harder, Matt. It&#39;s fun to sit here and shoot torpedoes into your statements, but after a while it&#39;s just "wasting ammunition". The SS Mattberg has a heavy list to starboard and the bow is underwater. Why waste more torpedoes ? We all look forward to the inevitable "gas explosion"…when the sea water hits the boilers…scheduled for the next time Matt hit "post" on this thread. It&#39;s the holiday season, and he&#39;s the "gift that keeps on giving".

No opinions will be changed by this thread…but maybe some will get an idea of who is a "credible" commenter and who is a "non-credible" commenter. You all can decide.

Outta here. Building a new &#39;old&#39; tow vehicle…and got 3 race cars to prep for spring. Happy blathering. Class dismissed.

[JeffYoung]

The key to all of this:

3.)What is the loss-history of Solo, and is it so low that the liability coverage cost is insignificant ? It doesn&#39;t matter if we think it&#39;s dangerous or safe…it&#39;s all up to loss-history, and a bunch of actuaries sitting in a cube farm someplace.

[gprodracer]

OK,

Just another dumb question from the peanut gallery. If (and I say if because insurance companies give nothing for free in my experience) the insuance company "gives" the Solo insurance for free under the blanket SCCA Club Racing policy, does Solo pay for any of the claims that happen during their events?

The initial questions remain after all these pages. Is Club Racing paying for Solo&#39;s and/or Pro&#39;s insurance? Why isn&#39;t that information readily available to all of us? Where is the money Club Racing generates going, and which divisions are making and/or losing money? We need these answers to figure out what direction our club is heading IMHO.

Mark

[JeffYoung]

Mark, it would work like this. If there was a loss at a Solo event, the insurance company would pay. The next year at premium time, the insurance co. would raise the premium due to the loss experience. So, the insurer (and not the SCCA) would pay initially, but we then would later on via higher rates.

[gprodracer]

Ok

My poorly worded questions work against me again! I understand what you are saying Jeff, but doesn&#39;t that mean that Club is absorbing the rate increases caused by any claims paid for Solo incidents? That in itself seems wrong to me. BTW, I have nothing against the Solo program, as I ran in it for 7 years before going Club Racing. I just want to see equal $$ distribution of costs so each program can stand or fall on its own merits to the club.
Hopefully I asked the right question this time!
Thanks for everyones imput, we are all learning things from this discussion.
Mark

[JeffYoung]

Mark, no problem and my answer was garbled, so I fixed it.

To answer your question, if we are covering both Solo and Road Racing in one policy (which I don&#39;t know for sure), then when Road Racing causes a loss that causes a premium increase that we all pay for and when Solo causes a loss then that causes a premium increase that we all pay for.

Where we MAY have an issue - and Matt et. al. have not been able to show any numbers establishing this -- is if we (road racers) are being charged more $$ to cover losses/premium increases caused by Solo.

No way to tell on this until someone gets informatoin from the SCCA on the loss experience for Solo and Road Racing, and how it has affected premiums. It is entirely possibly that Solo has had NO losses over the years, or such infrequent ones that the premium related to solo events is miniscule. Entirely possible.

[IPRESS]

You know.....this is the kind of thread that has gotten The Prod Board it&#39;s reputation! :dead_horse:

[JohnRW]

You know.....this is the kind of thread that has gotten The Prod Board it&#39;s reputation! :dead_horse:
[/b]

The difference is...IT guys drive newer and more reliable cars.

[lateapex911]

Yea, but if you put those grid girls pics ....(Not ONE thanks from ANY of you?? For shame!...trying to brighten up the place, I am...) ....up on the Prod site, half the old geezers would topple over...

Hey...that gives me an idea that might just solve the "too many prod classes" problem.....


;)

[JamesB]

now now jake, no accidentally killing off members by having a crew of FHM models in the pits.

[RSTPerformance]

now now jake, no accidentally killing off members by having a crew of FHM models in the pits.
[/b]


Maybe SCCA new Jake was going to do this, thus new that the Road Racing group got charged for the insurance??? :rolleyes:

Only thing is though, I don&#39;t think he can convince any of that type to come to the track with him... :biggrinsanta:

Thank you Jake though for bouncing us off topic, certanly more fun!!! :happy204:

Raymond "crap I am going to get slamed for this one" Blethen

PS: Maybe I should be in Prod, with my reliability... hummmm

[lateapex911]

Only thing is though, I don&#39;t think he can convince any of that type to come to the track with him... :biggrinsanta:

[/b]

It&#39;s not a question of me being able to get any of that type to come to the track with me....

it&#39;s a question of am I dumb enough to bring any of that type to the track with me......

[JamesB]

Depends on how much trouble that might cause you.

[dickita15]

It&#39;s not a question of me being able to get any of that type to come to the track with me....

it&#39;s a question of am I dumb enough to bring any of that type to the track with me......
[/b]

yea Jake it&#39;s by choice. right :P

[charrbq]

The key to all of this:

3.)What is the loss-history of Solo, and is it so low that the liability coverage cost is insignificant ? It doesn&#39;t matter if we think it&#39;s dangerous or safe…it&#39;s all up to loss-history, and a bunch of actuaries sitting in a cube farm someplace.
[/b]
Yep...several years ago, I believe it was in SF region, but I might be wrong, there was an incident involving a Solo driver and a passenger in a "fun run". Both had on Snell and DOT helmets that were legal at the time. Short story...stuck throttle and low tree branch. This was well after the inclusion of Solo Safety Steward program that insured as safe a course as could be imagined. The following year, the helmet regulations were changed and the entry fees went up to compensate for the increased insurance fees due to the loss of life. To my knowledge, nothing nearly as severe has happened since.

[dickita15]

that is participant insurance for which solo pays. the question concern is there a significant loss history involving claims from someone who has not signed a waivor.

[charrbq]

Can&#39;t answer that one, but maybe why the big push to have everyone in the general vicinity of an event sign a waiver. I know there&#39;s a need, but it&#39;s gotten absolutely ridiculous to perform. It can turn a spectator that might have become an entrant into an alienated passerby. The only reason I can see for it, is due to the easier access of a bystander to a dangerous area as opposed to a road racing course.

[Bill Miller]

Yea, but if you put those grid girls pics ....(Not ONE thanks from ANY of you?? For shame!...trying to brighten up the place, I am...) ....up on the Prod site, half the old geezers would topple over...

Hey...that gives me an idea that might just solve the "too many prod classes" problem.....
;)
[/b]

Watch it bucko! :026:

[Mattberg]

I&#39;ll just make a closing statement because I got confirmation of what&#39;s going on from an employee and I was balls on dead correct. Club racing pays for all the liability for both pro and every other aspect of SCCA events. Believe what you want. What pissed me off more than anything else is that I found out something else recently. Took me a few weeks to confirm it was true because some guy I didn&#39;t know contacted me out of the blue, but get this. The Fran Am deal? There is NO non-disclosure or confidentialtiy agreement. I got documents, transcripts, written and verbal evidence with absolutely no reprisal fears from the "other side" of the suit. The "confidentiality" agreement is a self imposed silence by the BoD to cover up what they did and what it cost the club. What a bunch of crooks!

Keep electing them boys. They only serve other areas of the club to get your money. Keep it secret and the racers will keep giving us their money which we can use on solo and other areas (we pay the liability for pro too) to protect the vote and keep getting re-elected. Smell the coffee you dumb fuc&s and stop with the rah rah SCCA. They&#39;re criminals! I actually think there have been a number of felonies comitted regarding false disclosure by a fiuciary. Get these fools and losers out of the club. Reject the worker and official vote. Get rid of solo and the rest of the non-racing crap that makes FAT LAZY TOO BROKE TO GO RACING OFFICIALS happy and respected. Road racing is WAY succesful on its own. Stick with the current plan and it will be broke in 48 months. Your choice.

[Matt Rowe]

Your claims of doom and gloom would be more believable if you hadn&#39;t said3 years ago that the club would be out of business in 2 years. Of course on a positive note, things are getting better, we went from 2 years to 4 before the sky falls. :D

[BobsAuto]

So, if you have this proof, please, do share so we see it in black and white!

[RSTPerformance]

I&#39;ll just make a closing statement... Get rid of solo and the rest of the non-racing crap that makes FAT LAZY TOO BROKE TO GO RACING OFFICIALS happy and respected.[/b]


nice nice... :023: you have my next vote mattassberg

Raymond "I think I will go to an Autocross next year, and get my money&#39;s worth... then I wont have any reason to be upset... and I will be able to move on with life " Blethen

[Mattberg]

Your claims of doom and gloom would be more believable if you hadn&#39;t said3 years ago that the club would be out of business in 2 years. Of course on a positive note, things are getting better, we went from 2 years to 4 before the sky falls. :D
[/b]

Where and when did I say that? I may have said we would experience financial difficulties in two years, which we are currently, but never said it would be gone by 2006.

I do think that four more years may be optimistic. The only financials I got through my requests to the club were a late filed tax return for 2004 (TY 2003) which had us with $32,000 COH. That&#39;s awfully close to the edge considering the Topeka payroll and fifteen years of declining revenues and cash flow. So far, they haven&#39;t produced 2004 or 2005 numbers which they had promised me and to which I am entitled under federal statute. Breaking the law doesn&#39;t seem to bother the BoD. They think they&#39;re untouchables and can do whatever they want. Time to send a couple of them to jail. Start with Joanne Jensen. I think a civil suit against her for losing $600,000 of club racing money is a good start. Oh wait... I hear she&#39;s running for the BoD again and is expected to win. Then she can cover everything up. Oh yea.. and then continue subsidizing her solo friends and officials&#39; parties and meetings. Who do you think is electing her? Road racers who got burned for $600,000? Wake up and smell the coffee.

I know the Runoffs don&#39;t mean much to IT as they aren&#39;t included (should be) but it is the cash cow for the club. They moved it to Topeka to save money on staff travel and lodging. Why then did they move the convention to Austin? I&#39;ve been told that officials said Topeka was too cold. They didn&#39;t have any problem putting club racers in 29 degree 40 MPH wind weather and then schedule it for the same time next year after the total weather disaster. Take your most important event and fu$k it up and then do it again? Why? And why can&#39;t we schedule it earlier? OHHHHHH... that would take thunder away from the solo nationals. Can&#39;t do that. The why do it? YOU GUYS let them do this and they know it. $1.2 million in meetings and official and director expenses. Keep it up guys. You all get your NASA licenses? PCA? BMW? We&#39;re getting raped and you guys rah rah their efforts as altruistic volunteers. They&#39;re law breaking scumbags who use our money to feel like important people in their otherwise boring lives. Four years? Yea... I think that&#39;s optimistic.

[ddewhurst]

***They didn&#39;t have any problem putting club racers in 29 degree ***

Come on Matt, which day was it 29* ? I was there for 12 days & there were NO 29* days. Are you correct with you other supposed FACTS ? I hate to say this Matt but I will anyway. Print facts or stay home with all the other little dogs. That FRIEND was a challenge, print the FranAm facts or under the porch. You know what hey say, all show & no go.

You will never be elected BoD or selected to the CRB so spend some of the money you would have used during time at one of those positions towards putting one of your so called crooks to the test in court.


Happy Holidays to one & ALL :biggrinsanta:
David

[JohnRW]

David - he&#39;s a noisy do-nothing. Always has been...always will be. Incredible capacity for &#39;self-parody&#39;. Nearly two years ago, he stated, in simple declarative terms, that he was going to run for a BOD position (see below):


posted 02-03-2005 03:32 PM02-03-2005 03:32 PM

Thanks Jim. You hit the button. And to be clear I&#39;m not citing or alleging malfeasance...Just want to get an idea about how the money is handled. I don&#39;t think that&#39;s asking too much. Especially considering that our recent elections have put people with virtually NO finance experience in place. To be told it&#39;s none of my business bothers me.

As a result I am going to run for the BoD and although I&#39;m pretty sure they&#39;ll kick me out if I win, I&#39;ve been told by enough people to shit or get off the pot.[/b]

Never happened. Never lifted a finger. He&#39;s happy to tell us all how to live our lives, but other than Internet gas-bagery, he offers nothing. Even claims to have Fran-Am case documents proving the wrongdoing that he has just danced around for several years, and claimed that they&#39;re not subject to any non-disclosure agreements (see current Prod site threads), and EVEN had a free offer for someplace to host them, for all of us to see (thank you Mr. Harlan). We&#39;d all REALLY like to see them, since it might give him some credibility (which he&#39;s been sorely lacking for a long time) and point us toward better club governance...but no..."nothing here to see...just move along, folks...".

Sometimes I think that he&#39;s just the SCCA version of an automated conspiracy generator, like this: http://www.cjnetworks.com/~cubsfan/conspiracy.html

Like I&#39;ve said before..."The gift that keeps on giving".

[charrbq]

"Internet gasbagery" is good...real good, but I still prefer the term "mental masturbation" when referring to Mattberg. :024:

[Joe Harlan]

Guys, I hate to tell you but I was provided a bunch of court documents that don&#39;t look all that good. They are supposed to be public record and I will be consulting an attorney to make sure I will suffer no damage for hosting them. They will be put up as soon as I get that information. If any of you attorney types want to save me a buck I will provide what I have to you. Matt is almost correct and stood corrected on the prodsite that the BOD can not disclose the settlement numbers of the case but the pretrial information is basicly open game and can be purchased online from the courts (the way it was explained to me) But I do have some of it. I will likely pay for all of it if need be.

[JohnRW]

Guys, I hate to tell you but I was provided a bunch of court documents that don&#39;t look all that good. .....Matt is almost correct and stood corrected on the prodsite that the BOD can not disclose the settlement numbers of the case but the pretrial information is basicly open game and can be purchased online from the courts (the way it was explained to me) But I do have some of it. I will likely pay for all of it if need be.
[/b]

"Pre-trial" ? Don&#39;t get two different issues confused. Yes...we&#39;re aware that the &#39;pre-trial&#39; documents basically harpoon the Club management and governance at that time...which resulted in a settlement payment. Got that. We all know they screwed the pooch, but not the &#39;how&#39;, in detail. His most recent claims are of both civil and criminal misconduct (hope he knows the difference) by BOD members, and that the final settlement agreement was NOT covered by the NDA, contrary to what we&#39;ve heard from the SCCA BOD. So....this issue isn&#39;t what happend pre-trial (yeah, they were idiots, got that), but rather "at & post-settlement".

Don&#39;t mix the issues. It&#39;s an important differentiation.

As to the costs...I thought Matt already had the documents. That&#39;s essentially what he&#39;s claimed. Why do you have to pay for it, if he already has access to the documents ? They&#39;re public records...they&#39;re not copyrighted...the costs are the electronic equivalence of Xerox fees, not &#39;rights fees&#39;.

[Joe Harlan]

John, go easy dude, I am providing information not defending Matt. The information I have may already be old news to some but I can&#39;t tell you how many people I know that didn&#39;t even know this issue existed. I could care less about disclosure fron the current BOD and I would not want another day in court if they disclosed something that should not have been. I do concern myself with the fact that the club lost a fair amount of uninsured money and legal fees in this deal and the people responsible could run for the BOD again....It would be a shame for someone that makes the pisspoor choice that were made to get reelected cause a large portion of the voting block knows nothing of the facts. Again I have tried to direct these issues away from the IT site and have this information that can be covered with facts and idea shared at the site I started.

[JohnRW]

Joe - not trying to beat you up here. Sorry if you felt that way. But, unless the "pre" and "post" parts of this are differentiated, no one will be able to navigate the rhetoric.

I too am pissed that we (the royal we - aka "the Club") got walked into this buzz-saw (the Fran-Am one) by people who either should have known better, or should have had it explained to them at the time by competent counsel, or had it explained and still didn&#39;t &#39;get it&#39;. I&#39;d really like to know who those people are, too. I am fully licensed at lobbing rotten tomatoes, too...and have spent the last 20+ years as a corporate "bullshit detector", so "Skeptic" is my middle name.

But..again...don&#39;t merge the "before" and "after" into one set of behaviors. That&#39;ll just set up a string of "red herrings" (wiki that, too), which is what we&#39;ve been treated to repeatedly in this thread.

Matt has made pretty strong allegations. Matt has long-standing credibility problems. How big a hook should we be expected to swallow, knowing what we know at this point ?

[JeffYoung]

Can someone give me a semi-objective 5 second summary of the Fran-Am case? I know nothing about it.

Thanks guys.

Jeff

[JoshS]

Yep...several years ago, I believe it was in SF region, but I might be wrong, there was an incident involving a Solo driver and a passenger in a "fun run". Both had on Snell and DOT helmets that were legal at the time. Short story...stuck throttle and low tree branch. This was well after the inclusion of Solo Safety Steward program that insured as safe a course as could be imagined. The following year, the helmet regulations were changed and the entry fees went up to compensate for the increased insurance fees due to the loss of life. To my knowledge, nothing nearly as severe has happened since.
[/b]
This will be my one and only post to this thread. Sorry Joe, I don&#39;t know how to followup to something here on your forum (and frankly I think you should have a thread on sccaforums or scca.com&#39;s forums rather than starting another site that won&#39;t have as much readership).

The event mentioned above was in southern CA, Cal Club Region, not San Francisco Region. I don&#39;t believe the helmet regulations actually changed as a result of that, but I could be wrong. Almost all (maybe all) of the videos you&#39;ll find of autocross accidents have happened at non-SCCA events.

On the topic of spectators: it&#39;s absolutely true that 99.9% of all Solo events are NON-spectator events. I refer you to sections 2.4 and 2.5 of the 2006 Solo Rulebook: http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/2006_solo_rules.pdf. My understanding is that the National office ceased approving spectator Solo events several years ago, although the provision for them still exists in the rulebook. Bottom line, all Solo events, including the National Championships, are non-spectator events, meaning that everyone has signed the waiver. A spectator event DOES pay a higher insurance premium, according to the rules. You might not see that on the rate sheet because they aren&#39;t approved any longer.

If someone does manage to walk onto the site without signing at an SCCA Solo event, then not only are they a trespasser, but the Solo Safety Steward at that event has failed in his duties (outlined in section 4.2 and 4.2.B of the Solo rules). Matt, since you&#39;re local to me and I know a lot of the local SFR Solo steering committee members, can you tell me when you did that? They&#39;ll want to hear about it.

[Joe Harlan]

This will be my one and only post to this thread. Sorry Joe, I don&#39;t know how to followup to something here on your forum (and frankly I think you should have a thread on sccaforums or scca.com&#39;s forums rather than starting another site that won&#39;t have as much readership).

[/b]

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

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

Joe

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://common.swankmp.com/movie_titles/images/0021553.jpg

[Mattberg]

Geez Andy, you&#39;ve really got a things coming out of one&#39;s butt.

To clarify a few points. First, there was no pre-trial or post trial documents because there was no trial. The documents I referred to were related to discovery and the depostition phase along with arguments to the numerous motions that are filed by both sides which make lawyers very happy and very rich in certain cases. I&#39;ll let Jeff explain that one. :D

Second, this case never came close to trial. They never even deposed the CRB members to whom the "fatal" message and smoking gun was delivered by Joanne Jensen. Most of these cases are settled on the courthouse steps just as a trial is going to start. This one shouldn&#39;t have even gotten to depostions and a settlement offer should have been made before spending millions on legal fees.

Third, it is true that the terms of the actual settlement are under NDA but there is absolutely nothing else that is which means the BoD is more than free to tell us what happend, who was involved and what the accusations were. They have clearly failed to do so and have claimed that they can&#39;t talk about the case. That is a bald faced lie.

Fourth, I will make these documents available if I can. I have made them available to Joe Harlan vis-a-vis my contact at Fran Am. My concern is legal. Unfortuanately my state believes that libel is a matter of intent to harm, not an issue of stating fact. In other words, even if it&#39;s true, you can&#39;t use it if your intent is considered committed in an act to harm... and use of such information with such intent is actionable. Trust me, I know this one well as I was sued last year for the exact same thing. I won but it cost me a bundle.

Last. Jeff. The case was pretty simple. It was also not the first one which a lot of people don&#39;t know as well. Regardless, in a nutshell, Fran Am went to SCCA with a homologation package for their Renault. The first big problem was that SCCA Eneterprises sent a guy over to Europe to try and steal the deal and cur Fran Am out. SCCA wanted the class but didn&#39;t want Fran Am. Renault said piss off, that&#39;s not honorable. The French... imagine that. So then Enterprises and the BoD who wanted a new formula spec car got one in FSCCA and Reynard. I believ they were the old Formula Ireland cars that they were trying to get rid of. So basically we were buying other people&#39;s garbage. Then comes the really sad part. Joanne Jensen was reported to have gone to the CRB and basically tell them you will reject the Fran Am homologation papers and you will accept the FSCCA applicaiton and make it a class.

Antitrust, restraint of trade...etc. There are a lot of other documents that illustrate not only a lack of respect for the law but a clear and decise decision to violate it. And Jeff, if you want to sign an NDA I&#39;d be more than happy to send you the documents. As I read it, the SCCA BoD is a plantiff&#39;s dream.

The BoD acts in the same way with things like our insurance. They just do whatever they want. The only thing that&#39;s important is that they get one of their own elected or as the case has been for the past fifteen years, re-elected. For that, they need solo and the workers. Racers just can&#39;t compete against the numbers.

[Matt Rowe]

In response to somebody walking up to close and being a trespasser. It is ok to say that and you could press charges on them but the fact still remains that if they get hurt even trespassing there will likely be a lawsuit and the club will likely pay some money. [/b]
And if the safety steward has done his job per SCCA procedures it is not possible to walk up closely. If not, report the issue to steward on site and if he ignores it report the official to National/Risk Management. It&#39;s not something that is taken lightly. Keep in mind if an official is acting contrary to SCCA procedures he opens himself up to personal liability.



Unfortuanately my state believes that libel is a matter of intent to harm, not an issue of stating fact. [/b]
You should move immediately. :o

[Joe Harlan]

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

Matt, read what I responded to then think about it. These event are held in freakin parking lots....You will never have 100% control with out a fench and security gaurds. Enough of this for me an audit of the insurance is the only way to confirm how this deal is split up.

[jjjanos]

FAT LAZY TOO BROKE TO GO RACING OFFICIALS happy and respected.
[/b]

You should put this on your racing car. That way, if you are every upside on fire, the flaggers will know to leave you in the car and go grab the marshmallows.

[Drew Aldred]

***They didn&#39;t have any problem putting club racers in 29 degree ***

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

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

Have a great holiday !! :114:

[Mattberg]

From the US weather Bureau...

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

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

[Matt Rowe]

From the US weather Bureau...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now the service only provides historical data for the previous three months so I had to compare weather on Oct 15th. I&#39;ll agree that Matt is right it was a record setting cold day on the 13th. But, in general Topeka is warmer than Mid-O is and only a fool would discredit an event based on an uncharacteristic stretch of weather.

And what does this have to do with insurance?

Oh and on the 15, the low in Mid-O was 30, Atlanta was 43, but Honlulu was 73 so I&#39;m lobbying to move the runoffs there. What does everyone think the tow fund would be like? :D

[lateapex911]

file:///C:/DOCUME~1/Jake/LOCALS~1/Temp/moz-screenshot.jpgI love this crap.

How to make numbers lie, LOL

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

Thats always the trouble with Matt,..no numbers, or misleading numbers. yeah yeah yeah, he didn&#39;t SAY it was 29 ALL day....whatever.

Heres the REAL chart:

[JeffYoung]

Guys, we are now arguing about TEMPERATURE. We have been reduced to this.....all part of the Greys&#39; plan!

[Gary L]

Guys, we are now arguing about TEMPERATURE. We have been reduced to this.....all part of the Greys&#39; plan! [/b] Foolish boy... It&#39;s not about the temperature, it&#39;s about the WIND!!! According to the chart, it peaked at 16 mph at 2:00 pm. Matt says it was blowing 40 mph. Obviously, the Greys have sabotaged the friggin&#39; anemometer!

[kermode]

And what does this have to do with insurance?

[/b]

Nothing and it&#39;s just as important. The insurance "problem" sounds like two middle managers arguing over which department should for maintenance of the company washrooms. Whether Solo or Club Racing "pays" for the insurance is hubris. Resolving this issue will not make the SCCA a more effective organization an expense will have been moved from one pocket to another, and unfortunately both pockets are both elements of the same pair of pants.

[Mattberg]

I said it got down to 29 degrees. David Dewhurst said it never got close. He was wrong. And for the record it was actually colder once I checked the records as I had gone on infromation provided me by one of the competitors. Just making that point. B) And BTW, the mean temperature for that day was only one degree above the record low for the same time in Ohio... Kansas sucks.

As it impacts insurance? It doesn&#39;t. But it is just more fodder as to how the BoD rips off club racing. Why not move solo Nationals? Oh no. Can&#39;t do that! Keep solo happy and win the votes. Use club racing money to pay the welfare bitches insurance. Yup, I said it again. Welfare bitches. Welfare bitches. Welfare bitches... :D GET RID OF SOLO or make them pay for their own policy and administration. They way I figure it, club racing is $1 million in the black even with the Topeka expenses. But the club is losing money. That means club racing is paying over $1 million to support other departments. Keep paying them guys. When the money runs out who are you going to complain to?

[jjjanos]

So far, they haven&#39;t produced 2004 or 2005 numbers which they had promised me and to which I am entitled under federal statute.[/b]

Please cite the Title and Section of the U.S. Code that says you get a copy of their tax return.


Breaking the law doesn&#39;t seem to bother the BoD.[/b]

I suggest you contact the Kansas AG, the AG for the SCCA&#39;s incorporation state and the federal prosecutor for Topeka.


Oh yea.. and then continue subsidizing her solo friends and officials&#39; parties and meetings. Who do you think is electing her?[/b]

I&#39;m taking a great big leap here, but...the members of the Club under the Bylaws and rules of that Club? Those would be the same rules and bylaws under which you joined said Club.


Why then did they move the convention to Austin?[/b]

Again, a giant leap here, but...nobody wants to go to Topeka in January?


I&#39;ve been told that officials said Topeka was too cold. They didn&#39;t have any problem putting club racers in 29 degree 40 MPH wind weather and then schedule it for the same time next year after the total weather disaster.[/b]

Average October Temperature:
Atlanta, GA: 62
Columbus, OH: 52
Topeka, KS: 57

Source:http://www.worldclimate.com/

Wow! I bet they even made a pact with Satan to have the weather so fouled up


And why can&#39;t we schedule it earlier? OHHHHHH... that would take thunder away from the solo nationals.[/b]

Rant, rant, rant, rant. With the exception of the last few years at Mid-Ohio, the traditional date of the Runoffs has been mid-October and the Solo Runoffs go at the end of Sept. Keeping the traditional Solo date, that means the Runoffs could advance 1 week.

Do us and yourself a favor, resign from SCCA and go find a club that you actually like.

[lateapex911]

Do us and yourself a favor, resign from SCCA and go find a club that you actually like. [/b]

No can do...chronic malcontents hate all...

Oh...and the wind?? there was a gust, according to the stats on wunderground.com, for Oct 13 that hit 42 kilometers per hour....so it&#39;s a fact, just a little issue with the measuremnt type. (That&#39;s 26 MPH) And the actual wind that day, not gusts, hit a high of 29 kph...(also known as 18 mph).

But hey, the SCCA big brass has a little private fund that makes money when it&#39;s colder than normal, so it&#39;s all part of the big plan....

[lateapex911]

I&#39;ve been told that officials said Topeka was too cold. They didn&#39;t have any problem putting club racers in 29 degree 40 MPH wind weather and then schedule it for the same time next year after the total weather disaster. Take your most important event and fu$k it up and then do it again? Why? And why can&#39;t we schedule it earlier? OHHHHHH... that would take thunder away from the solo nationals. Can&#39;t do that. The why do it? ........

We&#39;re getting raped and you guys rah rah their efforts as altruistic volunteers. They&#39;re law breaking scumbags who use our money to feel like important people in their otherwise boring lives. Four years? Yea... I think that&#39;s optimistic. [/b]

Long sigh....

Maybe...just maybe, the event occurs later so more racers can race? As in the northern racers get a later start than the Southern racers...something about snowmelt on the tracks, and September is good racing weather. Perhaps...(just a wild guess here) the Runoffs..(which is the result of multiple racing series across the country) needs to occur AFTER those series have had enough chance to umm...happen??

Now, you&#39;re predicting anohther dismal cold weather event next year, as your quote states.

Psst...if you can predict weather, there are industries that can earn you hundreds of thousands a year. Might want to check into that.

Might be an intersting life......

[Joe Harlan]

Please cite the Title and Section of the U.S. Code that says you get a copy of their tax return.
[/b]

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=135008,00.html

Basic 990 information here. ANY 501 c 4 corp is required upon request to disclose this document at a minimum.

[Mattberg]

Please cite the Title and Section of the U.S. Code that says you get a copy of their tax return.
[/b]

Section 990 of the IRS code.



I suggest you contact the Kansas AG, the AG for the SCCA&#39;s incorporation state and the federal prosecutor for Topeka.
[/b]

Done. Also have contacted the Insurance Commissioner&#39;s office and the IRS. Pete Lyon has been quoting rates to the club without a license. He&#39;s also been sending out "legal" documentation from Topeka including a number of letters to me yet he is not a member of the bar there. That&#39;s a no-no.



I&#39;m taking a great big leap here, but...the members of the Club under the Bylaws and rules of that Club?
[/b]

Yup. That&#39;s why we need to change the bylaws. There are childeren and dogs voting.



Those would be the same rules and bylaws under which you joined said Club.
[/b]

No. The rules were changed over the years by the BoD.


Again, a giant leap here, but...nobody wants to go to Topeka in January?
[/b]

For an indoor event? Why incur a HUGE expense? Sorry. Officials want ta party keep it in Topeka.


Average October Temperature:
Atlanta, GA: 62
Columbus, OH: 52
Topeka, KS: 57

Source:http://www.worldclimate.com/
[/b]

Apples and oranges. Remember that the Runoffs at Ohio took place the tird week in September, not October. They ended almost three weeks before the HPT Runoffs even began.



Wow! I bet they even made a pact with Satan to have the weather so fouled up
Rant, rant, rant, rant. With the exception of the last few years at Mid-Ohio, the traditional date of the Runoffs has been mid-October and the Solo Runoffs go at the end of Sept. Keeping the traditional Solo date, that means the Runoffs could advance 1 week.
[/b]

Since 2001, maybe longer (I can&#39;t remember) we&#39;ve been running third weekend in September.


Do us and yourself a favor, resign from SCCA and go find a club that you actually like.
[/b]

I&#39;d rather see SCCA go bankrupt and then try and buy it or at least the assets. That&#39;s the current plan. The trustee at auction won&#39;t give any prefernce to members, workers or officials either. ;)

[Mattberg]

Back to insurance...

I got a quote for the same coverages we currently have excluding Pro, solo and all the other trash. Basically a savings of $442,000 in premiums immediately and possibly more depending on future claims. Far less than the $833,000+ I had hoped for but still a considerable amount. Luckily I have a cousin who is head of reinsurance for one of the world&#39;s largest insurers. Interestingly, he told me that the market is very soft right now and the SCCA policy is a golden goose. He said that a lot of companies would kill to get our policy yet we don&#39;t bid it out. Pete Lyon has an exclusive on it.

[jjjanos]

Yup. That&#39;s why we need to change the bylaws. There are childeren and dogs voting.[/b]

Proof as per the canine vote? Evidence that the canine vote has determined any election?


No. The rules were changed over the years by the BoD.[/b]

No.

Article XI SCCA By-Laws
"Proposals of either origin shall be submitted to the vote of the Regular Member by mailing notice of the proposal and a form of ballot to all Regular Members."

The members change the rules. If the By-laws allow the BoD to expand the list of eligible, then it still is the members


For an indoor event? Why incur a HUGE expense? Sorry. Officials want ta party keep it in Topeka.[/b]

Don&#39;t get to many conferences do you? Attendance at nicer venues is higher. Many people bring their families. Please establish that (a) the expenses are "HUGE" compared to a Topeka conference (B) the additional revenue generated through increased attendance is less than the additional expenses.

Flight about $300 without any group discount negotiated. Rooms: $115/night without factoring in the rate break given to the host of any conference.

Call it $1000 worse case (w/o a break on the hotel rooms) per Topeka-based staff member or about 40 people if the entire office comes down. That&#39;s $40,000 MAX - not exactly a HUGE amount. In addition, there&#39;s a good chance that the organization would book rooms for some of the staff in a Topeka-based convention. That means the additional cost is probably a &#39;HUGE&#39; amount below that worst-case scenario.

Please define "Officials." You seem to cast a wide net across those you think are untermensch. Please remember that the CLUB includes far more than people who hold and use racing licenses. Nor is the purpose of the club exclusively the organization of automobile races.

"The nature of the activities to be conducted and the purposes to be promoted and carried out are as follows: To promote interest in sports cars and other fine automobiles and to encourage their safe and skillful operation, by developing, arranging, and regulating closed circuit road racing, rallying, and other forms of automotive competition, by dissemination of information through news releases and Club publications, and through related social and recreation activities for the instruction and enjoyment of its members."


Apples and oranges. Remember that the Runoffs at Ohio took place the tird week in September, not October. [/b]

Horse hockey! The move to the end of September was a recent move and the event was typically held in mid to late October. The event was moved after two consecutive years of unusually cold weather - the second year involving sleet.







Luckily I have a cousin who is head of reinsurance for one of the world&#39;s largest insurers. Interestingly, he told me that the market is very soft right now and the SCCA policy is a golden goose. He said that a lot of companies would kill to get our policy yet we don&#39;t bid it out. Pete Lyon has an exclusive on it.
[/b]

You do realize that a reinsurer doesn&#39;t issue policies? You do realize that before a reinsurer can reinsure a motor sports policy, someone must issue that policy? You do realize that there are a limited number of companies that issue motor sports policies?

That would seem to indicate that there cannot be "a lot" of companies that are willing to issue policies.

There might be a large number of companies that would be willing to get a piece of the reinsurance of an issued policy, but that&#39;s between the primary insurer and its reinsurers.

[Mattberg]

I can&#39;t remember the last time a MO Runoffs was any time other than mid-late September. It&#39;s been at least six or seven years. Hardly would consider it traditionally on a weeks that we haven&#39;t done it for that long.

[jjjanos]

I can&#39;t remember the last time a MO Runoffs was any time other than mid-late September. It&#39;s been at least six or seven years. Hardly would consider it traditionally on a weeks that we haven&#39;t done it for that long.
[/b]

2001 was the first year the Runoffs were moved from October to September. The Solo Runoffs were moved to a weekend earlier in September as well. Solo championships were interrupted because of the attack. Runoffs took place the week following.

The Runoffs are traditionally held in October. Of the 43 events held to date, 5 were held in September. Memorial Day is observed on the last Monday of May and have been so observed for 30+ years, yet the 31st of May is still noted as Memorial Day (traditional) on calenders.

[BobsAuto]

Does anyone realize how many views and posts are spent responding to morons who think they know everything? The last thread one MB was involved heavily in was over 4000 views and this thread is pretty damned close to that one.
Stop waiting bandwidth or whatever the cyper stuff is called and get on to real things like who&#39;s getting what for their race car from Santa..... :114:

[ddewhurst]

***They didn&#39;t have any problem putting club racers in 29 degree 40 MPH wind weather and then schedule it for the same time next year after the total weather disaster.***

Matt, most racers other than those that were at DB&#39;s were in their motel rooms at NIGHT when it was below 30*. A couple mornings at approx 6 a.m. when I left the motel room a jacket felt GREAT. It was total black at HPT untill 7a.m. As I said in the past Matt there was not a 29* day (time when club racers race).

What I like best about this thread is that the temps are easy to get facts & print which is more than Matt can do whih the facts of his current rant.


Happy Holidays :biggrinsanta:
David

[lateapex911]

I&#39;d rather see SCCA go bankrupt and then try and buy it or at least the assets. That&#39;s the current plan. The trustee at auction won&#39;t give any prefernce to members, workers or officials either. ;)


[/b]

Glad to see you have the best interests of everyone in mind here.....

[Joe Harlan]

***They didn&#39;t have any problem putting club racers in 29 degree 40 MPH wind weather and then schedule it for the same time next year after the total weather disaster.***

Matt, most racers other than those that were at DB&#39;s were in their motel rooms at NIGHT when it was below 30*. A couple mornings at approx 6 a.m. when I left the motel room a jacket felt GREAT. It was total black at HPT untill 7a.m. As I said in the past Matt there was not a 29* day (time when club racers race).

What I like best about this thread is that the temps are easy to get facts & print which is more than Matt can do whih the facts of his current rant.
Happy Holidays :biggrinsanta:
David
[/b]


David, In full disclosure. It maybe was not 29 degrees but it was cold a crappy several days of the event. Lets be fair and I was just down the tent from you. The only place that was warm and comfortable was Babydolls and several of us spent next years tire budget there. With all that said lets put an end to this stupid thread cause it is serving no real information now. The fact will come out on insurance as soon as they can be obtained.

[JeffYoung]

The Fran Am information was interesting. It certainly appears there was a concerted effort to keep the Fran Am cars out of club racing. SCCA just claimed it wasn&#39;t legally actionable. Definitely some hubris and arrogance in some of the e-mails and other documents Joe sent.

Why did they see Fran Am as such a threat?

[seckerich]

:unsure: When this will get real interesting is when the numbers at the runoffs drop like a rock. I have heard from too many people that it is a trip they will not waste money on again. When some of the contract details come out (minimum car counts) it will be fun to watch.

[ddewhurst]

***With all that said lets put an end to this stupid thread cause it is serving no real information now.***

Joe, I agree ^, but it was 80* one of the days I was there therefore I could say the weather was extremly nice for the Runoffs. ;)

Happy Holiday :biggrinsanta:
David

[Joe Harlan]

The Fran Am information was interesting. It certainly appears there was a concerted effort to keep the Fran Am cars out of club racing. SCCA just claimed it wasn&#39;t legally actionable. Definitely some hubris and arrogance in some of the e-mails and other documents Joe sent.

Why did they see Fran Am as such a threat?
[/b]

Because they wanted to build there own formula spec car.



Steve, the east coast number may drop but I will say the west coast numbers are going up. I think in the end it will balance out. I am not going to get into the whole Topeka thread again cause we are the for at least 2 more years.


David, The day I showed up it was 86 degrees at 8:30 at night with 15 mile an hour wind. It felt like a blow dryer when I got out of the toterhome. We had a decent test week and after that it was cold as a witches... for the balance of the week. I am not one of the folks that didn&#39;t like the place. Like you I had a good time for most of it and can see the potential of a nice facility in the future. Plus it&#39;s in the middle of the country which I think is almost as good as a rotating event.

[ddewhurst]

See ya next year at the Runoffs Joe. :114:

[Joe Harlan]

Yep..... :eclipsee_steering:

:happy204:


:snow_cool:

B)


:smilie_pokal:

[Mattberg]

***They didn&#39;t have any problem putting club racers in 29 degree 40 MPH wind weather and then schedule it for the same time next year after the total weather disaster.***

Matt, most racers other than those that were at DB&#39;s were in their motel rooms at NIGHT when it was below 30*. A couple mornings at approx 6 a.m. when I left the motel room a jacket felt GREAT. It was total black at HPT untill 7a.m. As I said in the past Matt there was not a 29* day (time when club racers race).

What I like best about this thread is that the temps are easy to get facts & print which is more than Matt can do whih the facts of his current rant.
Happy Holidays :biggrinsanta:
David
[/b]

Dave, half if not more of the folks there want to BBQ, socialize and party at the track at night. I heard the famous prod party looked like a Mayberry town meeting. That&#39;s sad because Alex works so damn hard at making it the best party at the Runoffs and does such a great job each year of accomplishing that. Everyone was huddled up in their motorhomes or off early to their hotels instead. If you want to sit alone in your hotel room, fine by me. But as I see it, it probably is MORE important to have mild weather in the evenings when people are walking around socializing. This was one of the biggest disappointments and complaints I&#39;ve heard.

All they have to do is move it back to the third week in September. The mean temperature difference is something like 14 degrees. Unfortunately it would butt up against the SOLO Nationals and when push comes to shove the road racers always lose. This is what I object to as well as an indoor event for officials being given more attention than the biggest event for the club, our BoD serves non-racers without justification. That was never the intent of the club. Worse than that, they contradict themselves in such an obvious manner by incurring new costs for the convention that were an excuse for moving the Runoffs! I&#39;m looking for the equity there. If you&#39;re going to make an effort to cut costs for T&E, do it across the board. Don&#39;t go and tell road racers to go to Topeka in Mid-October to save on staff T&E and then use those savings to fund new T&E for the convention. That&#39;s what this is all about. It&#39;s about shifting cash from road racing to non-racing departments. Be it insurance, expenses, staff, etc. We need to have a more equitable situation with respect to both cash, resources and prioritization of both our charter and intent.

[lateapex911]

All they have to do is move it back to the third week in September. The mean temperature difference is something like 14 degrees. Unfortunately it would butt up against the SOLO Nationals and when push comes to shove the road racers always lose. ................ Don&#39;t go and tell road racers to go to Topeka in Mid-October to save on staff T&E and then use those savings to fund new T&E for the convention........... That&#39;s what this is all about. It&#39;s about shifting cash from road racing to non-racing departments. [/b]

Tooo funny!

Yup, the club is ALL about Solo! They couldn&#39;t give two shillings about road racing. Heck, when they decide to have Pro Solo go to a Playoff format, I bet they cancel the Runoffs altogether! Wait...didn&#39;t they kinda cancel Pro Solo for next year? Oh...well whatever, I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll find anothe reason to move or cancel the Runoffs. Riiiiight!

And they moved the event from Mid Ohio to Topeka (your "Screw the roadracers" plan) so that they could move the convention to balmy whereever , thereby stealing the funds needed to send the staff to Ohio in exchange for sending the staff.....someplece...wait for it....balmy!

Really, I don&#39;t know how it took us all soooooo long to see this!

You&#39;ve really exposed it this time!!!!!!!!

(The theory would work better, (but not all that well, actually) if the other reasons and costs associated with moving the event were discussed...but hey, then facts would get in the way, and we all know it&#39;s about anything but real facts...)

[jjjanos]

All they have to do is move it back to the third week in September. The mean temperature difference is something like 14 degrees. Unfortunately it would butt up against the SOLO Nationals and when push comes to shove the road racers always lose. [/b]

I suggest that you tear down the cross you bare and use the wood to build a bridge to get over it.

This was done in the past and the SOLO Nationals moved their date. There is no reason other than a supernatural desire on the part of the officials of the club to piss you off that prevents such a move in the future.


This is what I object to as well as an indoor event for officials being given more attention than the biggest event for the club, our BoD serves non-racers without justification.[/b]

1. I have asked before and I am asking again - DEFINE YOUR MEANING OF OFFICIALS.
2. Given that policy and training is conducted at the National Convention, I would say that the Convention is for racers.
3. Given that many, if not most, of the "OFFICIALS" attending the National Convention endured the full force of nature at the Runoffs, and unlike you, did not have the luxury or the opportunity to slink away into a heated motorhome, why is this such a big deal to you?
4. There are more purposes to the SCCA than the Runoffs.


That was never the intent of the club. Worse than that, they contradict themselves in such an obvious manner by incurring new costs for the convention that were an excuse for moving the Runoffs! I&#39;m looking for the equity there. If you&#39;re going to make an effort to cut costs for T&E, do it across the board. Don&#39;t go and tell road racers to go to Topeka in Mid-October to save on staff T&E and then use those savings to fund new T&E for the convention. That&#39;s what this is all about. It&#39;s about shifting cash from road racing to non-racing departments.[/b]

1. So if the Runoffs had been kept on the non-traditional date, your stigmata would not be acting up?

2. T&E for the Runoffs exceeds T&E for the convention - 7+ days for the Runoffs versus 4+ days for the Convention. Given that this is a cost savings to the SCCA, I note the distinct aroma of hypocrisy in the air.

3. Please establish that the current allocation of resources to the various activities of the SCCA is proportional to the interests of its members. Shifting resources from road racing to other departments is only "unequitable" if road racing is utilizing a smaller share of the resources than membership-interests would indicate. Please remember that the areas that generate those resources is irrelevant, so don&#39;t rely on a spurious Road-racing earns the most money argument.

[gprodracer]

Why do you all make me ask all the stupid questions?

Why is the fact that road racing generates more income than the other divisions irrelevant? It brings us back to the original question as to whether Solo is paying for their share of insurance, or are we, the club racers paying for them under our policy. If club racing is paying the whole tab, we (as dues paying members) need to know, and the financial statements for each division of the club need to be changed, so that the true gain or loss of each branch is identified. This is imperative (IMO) for the members to know, so we can make an informed decision as to the direction OUR Club is heading.
I&#39;ll say this as many times as needed..each division of our club needs to stand or fall on its own. If a division is failing, and we believe it&#39;s worth rescuing, then lets put our efforts in to saving it. If one proves to be a continuous money pit, with no hope on the horizon, then we need to cut our losses, and move on.
I know that this is a very simplistic way of putting things, but there are people in official capacities (that none of us voted into office) that are making decisions for us every day, that have not asked us for our opinions, and/or do not care what they are. :018:
WE need some honest answers...we deserve that, at the very least.
Sorry....I&#39;m done ranting for now...just think about it. B)
Mark

[Joe Harlan]

Thank you Mark for seeing the bigger picture...

[jjjanos]

Why is the fact that road racing generates more income than the other divisions irrelevant?[/b]

Road racing could be a cash cow and still represent only 10% of the interest of the membership. Revenue is determine, in part, by the elasticity of demand. Club racing is fairly inelastic with respect to price - not many substitutes that offer the same type of racing. Auto cross is fairly elastic with respect to price - it&#39;s fairly easy to put cones down in a parking lot.


It brings us back to the original question as to whether Solo is paying for their share of insurance, or are we, the club racers paying for them under our policy.[/b]

I&#39;m unaware of anyone having yet established that the "insurance" "surcharge" on club racers pays the entire cost of the insurance or whether general revenue is allocated. So, before the pitchforks and torches get pulled out in the hunt for the monsters, I&#39;d suggest that someone demonstrate this. be a terrible shame if club racers&#39; entry fees had to increase to cover the cost of insurance that membership fees are paying.

[JoshS]

Why is the fact that road racing generates more income than the other divisions irrelevant?
[/b]
Honest question here -- I&#39;ve done no research. Is it truly a FACT that road racing generates much more income than the other club activities? How much more?

EDIT: I found the information, in the 7/06 Fastrack.

It basically says that:
Club Racing: income: $1.76M, expense $1.56M, net income: $232K
Solo: income: $1.1M, expense $852K, net income: $293K

I believe that the argument in this thread is that this would look very different if the insurance costs were accurately split here, but I don&#39;t see ANY insurance costs listed for either activity. The biggest difference between the two in terms of expenses is in terms of "Licensing Costs", which are $538K for Club Racing but only $13K for Solo. Of course, the only licenses for Solo are for Pro Solo, and there&#39;s really nothing to that, it&#39;s not like the medical stuff, etc, that&#39;s required for Club Racing. Is this the line that insurance is allegedly rolled up into that makes this all askew?

I&#39;m really just asking for what makes it a "fact" that, as quoted above, "road racing generates more income than the other divisions?"

Not challenging, just trying to understand.

[Joe Harlan]

My guess is that licensing costs are the rulebooks forced with the license purchase. Solo is provided that information online.

If you back out the sponsership dollars for solo net income would be under 10k....Without the tireack nationals Solo is not he cash cow that it appears.

As to the insurance split, The question has been offcially asked and to this date no answer has been provided.

[planet6racing]

Mark got to ask his "stupid" question (his words, not mine), so I&#39;ll ask mine:

Why haven&#39;t you all elected to use the "Ignore User" function and change all of Mattberg&#39;s comments to:

"You have chosen to ignore this user."

?

It really makes for a less stressful reading of the board...

Merry Christmas to all!

[lateapex911]

But the snappy comebacks and retorts make so little sense that way! Besides, his comments get a mere skimming, just for giggles!

[charrbq]

But the snappy comebacks and retorts make so little sense that way! Besides, his comments get a mere skimming, just for giggles!
[/b]
He can be entertaining! Reminds me of a stalk of celery in a food processor left on all night. By the time he&#39;s done, it doesn&#39;t look like anything he started out with, but he still tells you it&#39;s a salad.

[Joe Harlan]

He can be entertaining! Reminds me of a stalk of celery in a food processor left on all night. By the time he&#39;s done, it doesn&#39;t look like anything he started out with, but he still tells you it&#39;s a salad.
[/b]

It really is too bad that the delivery is so bad because there is really something in the message.

[lateapex911]

It really is too bad that the delivery is so bad because there is really something in the message. [/b]

Yup, and according to matt they CHOSE to race in the cold..which they KNEW was coming, and will do it again next year, in SPITE of the 40 mph winds and sub freezing temperatures, all so they can free up funds to send staffers to balmy places.

There is, I am sure, some truth to Matts rantings from time to time, but honestly, he&#39;s rather off base more than he&#39;s on, and he&#39;s more than happy to drag anyone thru the internet mud at a moments notice, without actual justification.

On balance, what he says that might actually have merit is ignored, just like the boy who cried wolf.....except the boy wasn&#39;t nearly as pompous and spiteful.

[Joe Harlan]

Yup, and according to matt they CHOSE to race in the cold..which they KNEW was coming, and will do it again next year, in SPITE of the 40 mph winds and sub freezing temperatures, all so they can free up funds to send staffers to balmy places.

There is, I am sure, some truth to Matts rantings from time to time, but honestly, he&#39;s rather off base more than he&#39;s on, and he&#39;s more than happy to drag anyone thru the internet mud at a moments notice, without actual justification.

On balance, what he says that might actually have merit is ignored, just like the boy who cried wolf.....except the boy wasn&#39;t nearly as pompous and spiteful.
[/b]


Your right jake, and unfortunatley there are those that just hide their heads in the sand and ignore the real issues. Take a look at the financial statement one day and forget Matt said anything about it.

Even the gains being made in IT today are because somebody noticed being treated like a step child was wrong and did something about it. You can ignore Matt&#39;s rant&#39;s all day long but don&#39;t ignore the fact that there are real issues and those issues need people like yourself to be involved in fixing them.

[gprodracer]

Josh,

What you are asking is part of the discussion. That is why we need the true costs for each division. Solo looks good with the numbers you provided, but as we&#39;ve been trying to determine, if Club Racing is paying for the insurance, then the numbers go the opposite direction for Solo. Again, I have no axe to grind with Solo, or any other division, I just want the true and accurate accounting to be made public. I&#39;m just your average dumb club racer, and I had to laugh at the Financial statement they published. Many others got the same impression...

And I have to agree with Joe.....there are messages in Matts posts...just because the delivery sucks doesn&#39;t mean the idea does.

Mark

[JeffYoung]

So it looks like Solo actually generates net revenue for the club? And about the same as club racing?

I understand a lot of that is from sponsorhip but honestly, it doesn&#39;t matter where the $$ comes from.

I think those numbers show fairly conclusively that road racers are NOT subsidizing Solo to a extent Matt has suggested.

[Joe Harlan]

Jeff, I find it interesting that sponserships....Admin generated 200k

And insurance is a single point assigned to admin

Or 717k in license fees compared to 17k

How about 149k in officers and staff compared to 14k

I am not saying anything is even really wrong (maybe) but proper answers would nice.

The final whopper is 200k in pro losses....
[attachmentid=742]

[gprodracer]

The question isn&#39;t whether Solo generates a profit,and quite frankly I&#39;d support Solo even at a loss, as many racers (myself included) come from the Solo ranks. The question still remains...is Club Racing paying for the insurance of the Solo program, and what does the Solo financial statement look like if the cost of the insurance is taken out of the bottom line? We still don&#39;t have the answer to that. If it&#39;s proven that Solo is paying for it&#39;s insurance, then Solo is indeed the "cash cow", then Solo participants need to speak up and voice their opinion as to how they want the club to proceed with their/our business transactions.
As for the sponsorship money, I respectfully disagree that it doesn&#39;t matter where the money comes from. The sponsors will have some say as to how their money is spent. Club racing money comes from us, doesn&#39;t that mean that we should have some sort of say as to how it is spent also?
Again, this is all my own simplistic take on this matter. Feel free to shoot holes in my opinions, I don&#39;t get offended easily. I&#39;m just trying to learn how our non profit club works, while trying to afford to race as often as I can.
We have gone on for 10 pages now....

Mark

[Joe Harlan]

No holes to shoot Mark, The reason I point out sponsership dollars is they have not always been there, RoadRac did not have a major title sponser for the ruoffs this year. The other issue is those numbers are also only National numbers. Most of that profit would be the National runoffs event cause clearly they are making nothing on licensing. I also agree that I would continue with solo even at a minor loss but there is no reason it should not run at a break even at a minimum. I guess the real point is why can&#39;t the books better reflect the whole picture so the membership feels confident in its leadership.

[gprodracer]

I&#39;m with you Joe, well put.
That is one of the points I have been trying to make. The majority of us common racers really don&#39;t have a clue as to the financial aspect of how our club is being run. A lot simply don&#39;t care, or don&#39;t know enough to care. and that&#39;s cool too. I personally want to keep club racing as affordable as possible for the entry level members, so we can grow, and keep future racers keep the club alive and viable. Simplistic..yes, but I have had the luxury of having a father who is an awesome mechanic, and without him I would never have been able to afford anything beyond autocrossing.
I however, am nowhere close to being a mechanic, and unless we keep costs down to the entry level people, my own sons, who have been coming to the track with me since birth, will not be able to afford to race. That is why I feel so strongly about seeing where our money is going, and having open and accurate accounting of the financials of our club. I&#39;m not a black helicopter guy, I just want to be able to vote people into office that have the same goals for the club that I do...to keep racing affordable so the average guy can go racing, and pass that on to his sons, his sons friends etc. and I don&#39;t see that happening with the path the club is currently on.
We need the club to get back to serving its members IMHO.

Off my soapbox, and thank you all who are working for the betterment of the club. Even if I don&#39;t always agree with you all, alot of us know how much you all do for us, and appreciate all your efforts.

Mark

[Mattberg]

Just curious here...

What would be your guess of how much our insurance paid out in claims, aside from Fran Am, per year for the past few years? Just a ball park guess guys. I&#39;d like to hear what you think the risk is for the $1.7 million we pay. And yes, I know the answer for 1998-2003, number of claims, payout and legal. So let&#39;s hear the guesses. Also, what department do you think made the most claims? I&#39;ll give you a hint... it wasn&#39;t club racing.

[JamesB]

Instead of playing games, why not post the information and the source footnote and be done with it?

[Drew Aldred]

The number I heard was so ridiculously low that we shouldn&#39;t even bother with having insurance. Just be self-insured and pay out any claims - WAY cheaper than the 1.7 M insurance policy. Again, IF the number I heard was correct, I haven&#39;t talked with anyone else to verify it yet.

Just like UPS carries no insurance for it&#39;s trucks, they just pay out any claims against them.

[JeffYoung]

Drew, I understand, but that is the case with most insurance. The premium far exceeds any actual payout.

The point is you are trying to avoid a single catastrophic loss with no coverage that bankrupts you. That is the risk avoidance that you are paying for.

For example, take a look at the SCCA&#39;s books. They could not handle a $1 MUSD uninsured cash payout, much less a $10 MUSD one.

[Joe Harlan]

Drew, I understand, but that is the case with most insurance. The premium far exceeds any actual payout.

The point is you are trying to avoid a single catastrophic loss with no coverage that bankrupts you. That is the risk avoidance that you are paying for.
For example, take a look at the SCCA&#39;s books. They could not handle a $1 MUSD uninsured cash payout, much less a $10 MUSD one.
[/b]


That would be things like the fran am deal.... :(

[JeffYoung]

Joe, the court file you sent me on that showed some stupid stuff on SCCA&#39;s part, that is for sure.

Still, different from a catastrophic personal injury -- pure business losses that are hard to insure against anyway.

But could have been entirely avoided if they had just been fair to the Fran Am guys.

[Joe Harlan]

Joe, the court file you sent me on that showed some stupid stuff on SCCA&#39;s part, that is for sure.

Still, different from a catastrophic personal injury -- pure business losses that are hard to insure against anyway.

But could have been entirely avoided if they had just been fair to the Fran Am guys.
[/b]


Woa,,,,,,,Jeff. We found something we publicly agree on......It could be a good day after all.. :D :birra:

[JeffYoung]

I will drink to that.

[Mattberg]

Ok Jeff.

My guess is a little over $8,000,000 in premiums in and something like $16K a year in payouts. Furthermore, less than 10% of that attributed to club racing with rally first and solo second. Those light poles in high school parking lots are expensive! :D

And as I&#39;ve said. It has NOTHING to do with how fast you go or the risk of the activity to the individual. Even catrastrophic loss is out of the question because of the definition of participating in an ultra hazardous activity. No one has ever sued successfully for a racing accident as a principal.

It has to do with the venue, number of people there and the damage that can be done to third party property/individuals. Race tracks are set up for such. High scool parking lots are not. Race tracks have limited access and fences. Parking lots do not.

The big question to me is this... where is all that insurance money going? If you only have payouts of $16K or so a year for 50 years, why would you keep paying millions protecting an asset for ten times it&#39;s inate value? Something doesn&#39;t jibe. We carry $15,000,000 policies on everything including umbrellas. We&#39;re the most over insured organization I&#39;ve ever seen. Why? What is it we have to protect? Well I guess that depends when your risk analyst is also your broker and your general counsel and gets paid a commission on the policies he sells you. :026:

I hate to tell you this Jeff but common sense has to kick in sometime. Someone is making a shitload of money. I have a very hard time believing it&#39;s one guy. Why wouldn&#39;t you self insure after 50 years of history? In another ten years we will have paid another $20 million in premiums and payout will not have changed other than CPI increases on medical. Wouldn&#39;t it just be better to risk losing our less than $1M in assets and pay out the claims ouselves? The bigger question is why our BoD has not taken this approach.

Better question for you Jeff...

You&#39;re an attorney. Would you pay $1,700,000.00 in premiums per year for malpractice to protect what you have? I hardly think you even have close to a risk of $16K a year, but all the same, would you pay it? It just doesn&#39;t make sense.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have claimed $0 on my car insurance policy over the past 15 year. I have paid roughly $1K per year. Based on these arguments, I could have &#39;self insured&#39; my car and had $15K in the bank.

But this isn&#39;t how real life works IMHO. You pay a yearly note to protect yourself for a huge loss. I can&#39;t afford to have my car become a total loss, but I can afford a small amount per month/year to INSURE (duh) that I don&#39;t end up with nothing.

I have a feeling that if the SCCA WASN&#39;T properly insured (ie: self insured) and we lost it all, these same people would be up in arms that we have no club because we were taking a calculated RISK and LOST. (Headline Topeka: SCCA BoD takes HUGE risk with YOUR dues and loses it all!!) That is what insurance is for. Protection.

Now are we OVER insured and could save some money on annual premiums? Someone with way more knowledge that me, that is for sure. And if that is Matt, so be it but he has no credibility here - or almost anywhere because of his actions/tactics. If its a real issue, drop it on someones doorstep who can actually get the ear of someone who can change something because Matt is done outta &#39;cred&#39;.

I bet if someone came over from a large member organization like AAA or something, we could really get down and dirty with these business issues. Driving costs down, bulking up features and benefits, etc. I just don&#39;t know how the &#39;business&#39; department of the SCCA is staffed.

[Joe Harlan]

Regardless of how you feel about Matt, Do you not question why after getting rid of rally our insurance fees didn&#39;t drop? Fact is Andy I have actual documents that show the payouts on our claims over a 5 year period. I am not sure how we can be rated at the level of risk we are. I have not had time to finish a complete analysis of this and I am not planning on posting any of it on the web. I would suggest this topic be moved over to save club racing site and not take up anymore space on this site. Thanks

[JeffYoung]

Andy is right.

Also, the umbrella portion of the insurance is probably very cheap. The real risk to the insurer is the first $1 MUSD, not the last $14 MUSD.

Will the SCCA give you a break down of how the premiums break down?

Then, as Andy says, what you really need to do here to see if there is an issue is see if (a) the amount of insurance we are carrying is too high given our risk (I suspect not, as one single wrongful death claim can approach our coverage limits) and (B) whether the premiums we are paying are too.

Point (B) is really a question to be determined by looking at what other insurers, IF ANY, are offering for this type of risk. That&#39;s really what you guys need to be doing. Ask NASA or PCA or BMW CCA how much insurance they carry, and at what cost and then compare it to the SCCA.

[Joe Harlan]

Andy is right.

Also, the umbrella portion of the insurance is probably very cheap. The real risk to the insurer is the first $1 MUSD, not the last $14 MUSD.

Will the SCCA give you a break down of how the premiums break down?

Then, as Andy says, what you really need to do here to see if there is an issue is see if (a) the amount of insurance we are carrying is too high given our risk (I suspect not, as one single wrongful death claim can approach our coverage limits) and (B) whether the premiums we are paying are too.

Point (B) is really a question to be determined by looking at what other insurers, IF ANY, are offering for this type of risk. That&#39;s really what you guys need to be doing. Ask NASA or PCA or BMW CCA how much insurance they carry, and at what cost and then compare it to the SCCA.
[/b]

Jeff, this is my intent and unfortunatley this thread has been reopened. I have the information needed to get an accurate bid. Anyway enough said from me on this

[bldn10]

"Why did they see Fran Am as such a threat?"

Like Joe said, to protect the SCCA&#39;s investment in the FSCCA via Enterprises. I think it is a conflict of interest for a sanctioning body to be in the business of building and selling cars. Enterprises should be divested. The excuse not to was that the BOD felt we should hold onto it but I presume that the real reason was that they didn&#39;t get crap for offers. Anyone know anything about this?

Earlier someone said in effect that Pete Lyon had the ins. locked up. What does that mean? Surely he isn&#39;t on both sides of the transaction.

[JeffYoung]

The funny thing is it looks to me that the SCCA (and Enterprises) could have BENEFITTED from Fran Am by adopting their car and selling it at a slight markup. I don&#39;t know all the ins and outs though, just what I got from the Court papers Joe sent.

What disturbed me in those was the decision by the SCCA NOT TO CLASS THE FRAN AM cars. That was just wrong and silly and righfully led to a lawsuit.

Bill, Pete Lyon is SCCA General Counsel and also the broker for the insurance company thorugh which the SCCA buys insurance. While it looks bad, it may not be if the premium is reasonable, etc. Also, Lyon may play no role in selecting the insurance. We&#39;d have to look at BoD minutes to see who voted on this and approved it.

That said, I woudln&#39;t have set it up that way just to avoid any appearance of impropriety.

[Joe Harlan]

The funny thing is it looks to me that the SCCA (and Enterprises) could have BENEFITTED from Fran Am by adopting their car and selling it at a slight markup. I don&#39;t know all the ins and outs though, just what I got from the Court papers Joe sent.

What disturbed me in those was the decision by the SCCA NOT TO CLASS THE FRAN AM cars. That was just wrong and silly and righfully led to a lawsuit.

Bill, Pete Lyon is SCCA General Counsel and also the broker for the insurance company thorugh which the SCCA buys insurance. While it looks bad, it may not be if the premium is reasonable, etc. Also, Lyon may play no role in selecting the insurance. We&#39;d have to look at BoD minutes to see who voted on this and approved it.

That said, I woudln&#39;t have set it up that way just to avoid any appearance of impropriety.
[/b]
Let me add, that while I would have never headed doen the path of building spec cars from a non-profit. The fact is we did. We sold 800+ cars under a stable rules set and have a very competitive group of cars attending every race they can. SRF has the highest participation numbers over the laast 7 years (all I can count) We made a promise to the guys that bought them to maintian stable rules and cost controls on the class and we need to honor that until the cars are not a viable option. Like all things SCCA i believe enterprises suffered from piss poor managment in the past and that was the biggest issue with it turning good numbers. I believe the current manager has the best interest of turning a profit while maintianing the cost effective nature of these cars. I have no propblem with the choice to service our customers as we should. That said other business practices of the past and current are the real issues this club faces.

[Mattberg]

And what is this insurance protecting? What is it we have so dear that we fear losing so much? If anything the insurance sets us up as a target. So why have it?

No one&#39;s going to sue the club if there isn&#39;t any insurance and if they do what are they going to get? Why not save almost $1.8 million a year? Or, if as Jeff said, the first $1M is the expensive part, let&#39;s just self insure the first million. We&#39;ll save $800,000 given we actually have a catastrophic loss.

But the problem is that the insurance is the big money in the club and its controlled by little minds. Either something is not right or those in charge have simply lost their heads over-insuring. There&#39;s nothing worth $15,000,000 to lose except the possible PERSONAL losses of officers, officials and directors... now there we might be onto something. ;)

[charrbq]

I agree with your protection of the Enterprises commitment, Joe. But the did the same on the Shelby CanAm, didn&#39;t they? As far as price protection, the original Spec Racer sold for a little over $10 grand, but after Renault and the SCCA had a "divorce", and the Roush/Ford drivetrain came on board, the transition amounted to another $10,000 to purchase in kit or to transform. Then, the SCCA dumped totally on the Renualt powered cars and refused to allow them to race in any form of SCCA event.

But, say we protect the SRF&#39;s and their racers...what caused the FE formula cars and the sports racers? Did we, as a club, need another spec class that was sold by us to be raced by us? Did Mazda, as some have suggested, lay an abnormally large quantity of bucks in the back pockets of some to get such a class created?

Cheese, when F500 was created as F440, we promised to keep the rules and the engines solid, but once they went national, the chassis were rendered illegal. Shortly there after, the engine supplier went away, only to be replace by another, and then replaced by an even different one. Where was the stability in that?

Even Formula Atlantic has gotten lost in the rules changes. Gone are the Ford BDA&#39;s, replaced by the Toyotas, and now booted by the Mazdas.

No wonder the production guys P&M! Their&#39;s is a nightmare of confused rules. :wacko:

[Joe Harlan]

I agree with your protection of the Enterprises commitment, Joe. But the did the same on the Shelby CanAm, didn&#39;t they? As far as price protection, the original Spec Racer sold for a little over $10 grand, but after Renault and the SCCA had a "divorce", and the Roush/Ford drivetrain came on board, the transition amounted to another $10,000 to purchase in kit or to transform. Then, the SCCA dumped totally on the Renualt powered cars and refused to allow them to race in any form of SCCA event.

But, say we protect the SRF&#39;s and their racers...what caused the FE formula cars and the sports racers? Did we, as a club, need another spec class that was sold by us to be raced by us? Did Mazda, as some have suggested, lay an abnormally large quantity of bucks in the back pockets of some to get such a class created?

Cheese, when F500 was created as F440, we promised to keep the rules and the engines solid, but once they went national, the chassis were rendered illegal. Shortly there after, the engine supplier went away, only to be replace by another, and then replaced by an even different one. Where was the stability in that?

Even Formula Atlantic has gotten lost in the rules changes. Gone are the Ford BDA&#39;s, replaced by the Toyotas, and now booted by the Mazdas.

No wonder the production guys P&M! Their&#39;s is a nightmare of confused rules. :wacko:
[/b]

Oh Chris that&#39;s alot to absorb. My comments don&#39;t respond to the mistakes of the past. They deal with the current deal. Average of 22 entries per weekend and even if we lost 10 of them by dumping the class. thats an average of 2500 bucks a weekend that regions loose of the top. Now times 10 races a season thats 25k. My region would fail to exist if we lost 25k over a season at this point. The 25K doesn&#39;t include the other monies these guys spent with the club. SRF if ran at a break even is good for the club. It is a member getting program. It was also start many years ago when startup cost were alot better than today. Do I agree with a spec formula car? Nope not at the credibility that it has cost this club. None of this would really be an issue if the doors were open and there was more membership oversight of this stuff. But unfortunately what happens when you disagree with this group is they kick you to the curb. If your a stward you better tow the line or you wont get good jobs, If your a bod member and speak out you get shit jobs or ignored. Unfortuate but true.

[seckerich]

Is it possible that the extremely high coverage is a carry over for minimum amounts required for Trans Am and Pro? Might be the reason it is still so high. Could some of the pro venues require this coverage? Just thinking out loud.

[JeffYoung]

Matt, not trying to be rude, but I think you are still missing the point of the insurance.

You&#39;ve seen the SCCA&#39;s books. A $1 million judgment against them that was not insured would sink the Club, or come very close to it. That&#39;s why they pay the premium that they do -- because there is no way the Club could take the huge cash hit from even a single large claim.

Steve, you may be right, that some of the high premiums paid in years past were due to Pro and Rally.

[JohnRW]

If the Club did not have risk/liability coverage in place, where do you think someone with a hankering to sue will go looking ? Right at you, babe...right at you.

Yeah...we all sign a waiver...but if waivers were perfect and infallible, then we&#39;d all sign waivers for everything in life and the personal injury bar would disappear. Fat chance.

Having a layer of insurance at the Club level does provide some amount of shield to all of us individuals. I don&#39;t give a rats ass if the insurance protects the Club...screw the Club...I&#39;m alot more selfish...it&#39;s covering my ass, too.

Edit - as to why the "minimums" are so high...it&#39;s because those are the levels of insurance that we are required to provide by track owners/promotors for the right to play on their pavement. If you don&#39;t provide a bond with their required #&#39;s, you ain&#39;t racing, period.

[Mattberg]

Who&#39;s going to sue and for what? In the last five years and as far as I can tell, all the time before that, the only claims are for track and property damage, and mostly from rally and solo. A slip and fall here and there but small potatoes. Meanwhile we&#39;re filling Pete Lyon&#39;s coffers with close to $2 million a year... for what? TO not pay off a $16,000 claim? To make sure we can pay a $1 million claim? Give up $2 million to feel warm and fuzzy about not paying out a million? Get realistic here.

First, there&#39;s nothing to sue for unless there&#39;s a fat insurance policy. Our risk analyst seems to have instilled the legal fear very effectively. We&#39;re providing that. Second, there&#39;s way too much money involved given the historic risk. Why do it? It just doesn&#39;t make sense. I just can&#39;t believe that we really believe it&#39;s worth paying all that cash for such little risk that&#39;s backed up by historical data. Why not just risk the catostrophic loss and keep $1.8 million a year and fire Pete Lyon? We put $2 million a year in the bank and take our chances. What do we have to lose? File for bankruptcy and call it a day. That&#39;s the smart play unless you have some huge asset. We don&#39;t. The problem is that I don&#39;t think that $2 million is going to one man or company. It&#39;s too much to overlook. Something stinks big time. As I watch the same people year in and year out in charge even after ousted from the BoD I get a very queasy feeling about what&#39;s really going on. Insurance is a great place to hide crap.

That&#39;s ok if you want to accept it. I&#39;ve filed my complaint with the Kansas Insurance Board of Commissioners and will continue examining the situation. We&#39;ll see what they say. I will tell you this. I spoke with the head of one of the largest "special event" insurers and they said they can&#39;t believe the numbers. I can&#39;t either. I&#39;ve also been told that Pete Lyon controls the bid process and specs and all other bidders are given less than 30 days to file their bids. An impossible task according to the experts for all but the current insurer.

No one&#39;s going to lose their house. No one&#39;s going to be made destitute. If something actually happened, we simply fold up shop and start a new club. Would you rather pay $2M a year to keep it the way it is on the total longshot that something happens? Or should we save that dough and maybe improve the club?

[Matt Rowe]

So let me see if I understand your plan Matt.

We drop insurance completely. Save 1.8 million in the first year. The ongoing litigation from the deaths in the rally program continue and wipe out those savings. Oh wait, that was already covered so let&#39;s assume that the car that hit the stands at Summit this year killed someone instead of a few minor injuries or one of a thousand possible scenarios and the club uses everything it has in defense or to settle. Meanwhile a significant number of volunteers abandon any position of responsibility because the club can no longer stand behind them in case of an incident. And yes people do stand to lose their house, cars and anything else a lawyer wants to take when they realize the club is bankrupt but the event organizers have money. Think it won&#39;t happen? It already does, but the club pays for all legal defense and settlements. If they didn&#39;t I wouldn&#39;t work another event again and I am certainly not the only one. Racer&#39;s in general accept risk. families and spectators? Not a chance. In this country if someone is hurt, they want someone to blame and deep pockets are shallow ones, settlements or court cases it all costs someone.

You seem to be missing one crucial point. Paying insurance does suck. It&#39;s like the lottery from hell, the tickets are expensive and you sit and wait praying that you don&#39;t "win". BUT, and here is the big point, when bad things happen nobody sits there and complains about the cost of the premiums. They thank their lucky stars they don&#39;t have to cover the losses and they continue on with their lives. The comparison to car insurance is dead on, if you&#39;re careful AND lucky it is money thrown down a whole. But it only takes a few seconds without it to really ruin you and things are never quite the same.

Now, I am all for greater visibility and oversight in the insurance process. And I don&#39;t see any problem with questioning how much coverage we need. But when you suggest self insurance I think you&#39;re off your rocker. What are we $7 million dollar gross anual income with almost the same in expenses? When is the last time you saw a company that size self insured? Yeah UPS is a $43 BILLION a year gross income and profits of almost $4 BILLION a year. They can afford a couple settlements a year and it won&#39;t even effect the executives bonuses. Our club? One incident and we could be done.

So Joe, please continue to ask questions and please make the information you have available to the rest of us, but let&#39;s not bet the whole club on a little luck, there are many people here that have a lot of time, energy and emotion invested in the club. With a name like saveclubracing I don&#39;t think anyone wants to take the risk of bankrupting the club.

[JeffYoung]

Matt B. -- you undersand that your position is contrary to the position that EVERY prudent corporation takes in the US? IT&#39;s from beyond left field. Other problems with your rant:

1. The SCCA does have a huge asset -- its name and history. This is what it is protecting and what it woud lose if it filed bankruptcy.

2. Lyons is not lining his pockets with millions. His fee as broker/agent is without doubt only a small percentage of the premium that is paid to the insurer.

3. In many cases, as someone else pointed out, it probably IS NOT the SCCA that is dictating the levels of coverage. It is probably the tracks/track owners that are requiring certain levels from the sanctioning bodies that are running there.

You may have a legitimate beef about (a) the amount of required insurance if it is much higher than what the tracks and/or our risk require, and I will tell you the policy limits I have seen do not seem extreme given what a single wrongful death claim could do to us OR (B) if what we pay for that coverage is much higher than what other organizations pay for similar coverage.

The rest of the stuff you keep raising over and over just shows a lack of real world experience with insurance and risk.

[Joe Harlan]

Matt R. , Your right I have no interest in backrupting club racing and I certainly would not consider self insuring the club because I do believe the club has more than enough assets to protect. Those assets belong to the members that paid for them over the years. My concern is the proper division of expense and that the whole insurance process is being fairly put out for bid. from the information I do have we may be over covered in some areas but again I have no real issue with that as much as insurance costs get assigned to the proper areas of the club.
I will add this what we do need to ba able to do is question our elected leaders and expect reasonable answers in a reasonable time frame. We need to work hard to over come apathy of the membership and find qualified not just popular people to run this club.

[charrbq]

Matt may be on to something about the self insured thing. With no premiums, we&#39;d have no insurance expenses that we all know are an expense in life we&#39;d like to cut. Of course, with no insurance protection other that the hope of a claim less than a self insurance bond, we&#39;d have no workers, no entrants, and no one would rent/lease us a track. Of course, no sponsors wouldl want to be involved as they could be named libel. That would result in no income for racing...except from possibly Solo II. We could then sell our race cars and the assorted tools, etc. and use the money to go on a cruise or send our kids to college or retire.

With no insurance, we wouldn&#39;t need any officers from club level to national as they would all be subject to any type of libel suit with no protection. With no officers or elected/paid leaders of the club, Mattberg would have very little to complain about (although that one&#39;s a reach), and he, too, would go away.

[Joe Harlan]

to go on a cruise [/b]

Do I have to take the wife or is this one of those Vegas kinda deals...It could be a deal breaker....... <_<

[charrbq]

With the kind of money I spend on my race car effort, each could go on a seperate cruise!

[Mattberg]

Jeff,

Please cite the case(s) in which anyone has ever SUCCESSFULLY sued for wrongful death after having agreed to participate and/or signed a waiver? I think you&#39;ll find it&#39;s never happened without gross negligence in an activity like ours and even in activities far less risky by perception. The simple proof is in a hockey puck at an NHL game. There&#39;s a dead girl&#39;s parents somewhere in Phildelphia wondering why they challenged those statutes and an attorney licking his wounds for the costs he thought he would recover. Get on WestLaw. Find the case that justifies our over insuring. We&#39;re protecting against a precedent that has been proven time and time again will not be established. The last place an ambulance chaser wants to be is at an SCCA event. It&#39;s a money loser.

As far as what we have to protect? A name? History? We lost that a long time ago. We&#39;ve got loans, leases and a mish mash of pretty much worthless assets. The brand has become relatively worthless. It produces less revenue than many of us make in a year. What sells is racing and the community. That would not disappear with a reorganization. But it is under the heavy hand of officials and corporate mismanagement. What you fail to realize is that the risk return we currently operate under makes no sense. I think forty years of history provide more than enough data to make a pragmatic business decision on insurance. What we are doing is the equivalent of insuring a non running Yugo for $100K a year on the chance that a tornado will lift it onto an innocent bystander two towns away and we will get sued for a wrongful death... and being subjected to a $50K settlement. At some point you must draw a line. Most of us pay for insurance at a rate of over 100 times the liabilty risk on an annual basis. SCCA pays 7 times with a deductible that basically amounts to the payouts per year. Did you know that the average SCCA payout is WAY less than the average auto insurance payout and considerably less than homeowners? Imagine paying $47,000 a year for your auto insurance per year, because that&#39;s what we&#39;re doing. Think about that one... please.

What is not pragmatic is over insuring to protect the throngs of officials, directors and officers we&#39;ve created who shed every last ounce of credibility and accountability on a fat insurance deal. I also remain suspicious of where that money goes because it&#39;s just too much. Insurance and liability are convenient terms that scares everyone and I fear it&#39;s being used inappropriately, but we&#39;ll save that.

If SCCA went under which it probably will anyway, it would be no big deal. Just as we did in the fifties, it would start up again with drivers with ambitions to road race. I&#39;m constantly reminded of this by a single event. Moroso a few years back. Funny because I was supposed to meet Steve Johnson there. Anyway, no workers or officials signed up and Stevie bagged out also. They were all at a pro race in St. Pete. I&#39;m not sure who it was but I thin it might have been Mike Cox, a regular here and big IT particpant, rallied the drivers. End result was not a cancellation but the best event I think I ever attended. At least the most fun hassle free weekend I can remember in 25 years of racing.

You may think SCCA is a name but it isn&#39;t. A brand is only as good as the awareness and revenue it creates. Ask someone on the street if they ever heard of it. Ask ten, a hundred. Go to a car show. Ask there. You&#39;ll be mystified with the results. Change the name tomorrow and you won&#39;t lose more than a handful of members. It is an organzation of virtual anonymity and private involvement. The brand has little or no value other than those who operate under it currently. It is in essence a private label offered to regular customers in a closed market.

I see the insurance as the ultimate brand killer. The money that could be garnered from that private label could be readily expanded. Sure enough, that comes with risk. But it&#39;s worth it if not simply to protect the private label. We cannot continue to pay out $2 million a year for risk management and insurance alone coupled with the enormous overhead of Topeka if we expect to survive. If YOU had any real life experience you might be able to see the business necessities required. Turn cost centers into profit centers. This is something we&#39;re not very good at doing. As a matter of fact, we&#39;re experts at creating cost centers. A result of having people in charge who don&#39;t run companies, don&#39;t have bottom line reposibilities or accountability and generally like to work with other people&#39;s money as if it were their&#39;s to use... without accountability.

We lack any significant responsible corporate governance and we certainly overpay for poorly implemented administration with expenses running without controls. Insurance is simply the first place to make a change because it offers the greatest potential return and savings. If you have a better solution for fixing our financial problems, which BTW Topeka has long denied but now admits are very real, please... I&#39;m all ears.

[bldn10]

Self insurance, all or part, is a legitimate course of action. I once worked in thge legal dept. of a nationwide plumbing/HVAC co. that decide to self-insure. You can go naked for the routine claims and buy coverage for catastrophic ones; e.g. a $500,000 deductable. W/ $1.8 Million to spend, I&#39;d think that we have options. But w/ your head of risk management profiting from the status quo, how likely is he to even look into it?

The question asked re who even wanted FSCCA underscores the fact that the SCCA just should not be in the car business. Classes should be determined solely by what the members want to race, not what someone thinks might be profitable.

What is the status of the litigation?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Matt R. , Your right I have no interest in backrupting club racing and I certainly would not consider self insuring the club because I do believe the club has more than enough assets to protect. Those assets belong to the members that paid for them over the years. My concern is the proper division of expense and that the whole insurance process is being fairly put out for bid. from the information I do have we may be over covered in some areas but again I have no real issue with that as much as insurance costs get assigned to the proper areas of the club.
I will add this what we do need to ba able to do is question our elected leaders and expect reasonable answers in a reasonable time frame. We need to work hard to over come apathy of the membership and find qualified not just popular people to run this club. [/b]

I agree with this 100%. Well said. This is the kind of attitude it will take to get it done.

Insurance is a rip-off, a raquet, a bunch of BS - IF YOU NEVER USE IT. But you have in in case you need to use it. It&#39;s a neccessary evil we all live with every day and if I ever need it, I will be glad I have it. I guess Matt has no life insurance - he must be self-insuring himself and his family...ya right.

To visit our policies is always the right thing to make sure we are getting the most for our money but to self insure? :duh:

[Mattberg]

:rolleyes: Yea... we need 37 officials at an event. Pay the workers. With $2 million you could do some real damage to that premise that no workers would show up. And what workers do you know that are targets for a personal injury atorney? You have no idea what you&#39;re talking about. THere&#39;s no attorney in his right mind that would attempt suing a judgement proof worker. What are you going to get? Your attitude is what fuels this over insurance. You gonna&#39; sue some guy for his 91 GMC van and mortgaged house? Good luck. How many of our workers are raking in a couple million a year? No offense but it just isn&#39;t realistic. So what. We lose all of the workers worth more than a couple of million dollars. Find me three. :D

The workers will be there. So will the officials, less of them without the big business and dollars ego trip. A good thing. Do you check to see if a grocery store is insured before you walk in? Do you check your church&#39;s insurance before volunteering to help with a fund raiser? Do you call your school board to check on the liability insurance before you let your kids particpate in a bake sale? You guys or absolutely nutso. Most workers could give two shits about it unless they were looking to collect on medical from a previous condition for which they were uninsured and I have news... from the claims, it looks like there are a lot of those. Another problem solved. :D

Save the $2M, put it in the bank and call it a day. If we get sued, we get sued. No one is going down individually.

[charrbq]

Another example of twisted logic. No one said anything about suing a worker or any other individual. Any officer of the club, whether national or local can be sued and held libel in the event of negligence. Making it stick is a whole &#39;nother subject.
Any worker, official, entrant, spectator, track owner, etc. can be injured at an event.

I don&#39;t check the policy of my grocery store, because I know it&#39;s in place in order for them to be in business. I don&#39;t work or run races at race tracks or for organizations that I know don&#39;t have policies in place.

[Mattberg]

Uhh...yea. Someone said without insurance no officials or workers would show up. Can you read?

[JohnRW]

So...we should only look at "successful" litigation against race organizations & participants ? Oh my...how naive.

The cost of defending yourself against "unsuccessful" litigation can be devastating. Our tort system here is not &#39;loser-pays&#39; , so YOU are on the hook to defend YOURSELF against any and all litigation, regardless of merit, regardless of whether it&#39;s successful or unsuccessful. Makes no difference whether you&#39;re a driver, a flagger, or a concession-stand vendor...unless you&#39;re covered under a blanket policy by an organizer or promotor or sanctioning body....YOU ARE ON THE HOOK.

So...how much could you be liable for ? Google "joint and several liability" and do a little reading. In many states that we race in, your own "1% responsibility for an incident" could translate into "100% liability for that incident".

It&#39;s juvenile to assert that we should just drop all liability coverage.

Do I have questions re: SCCA&#39;s current insurance arrangements ? Yes. Had them for a long time...raised questions about the "General Counsel/Insurance thing" with my RE years ago...never gotten a satisfactory (to me) response...but that doesn&#39;t mean that there is evil lurking. We should have some clarity on the issue.

[lateapex911]

Uhh...yea. Someone said without insurance no officials or workers would show up. Can you read? [/b]

Maybe he can, maybe not to your satisfaction, but as you&#39;re a chronic malcontent, I doubt anyone can...

At least he&#39;s not rude.

And you wonder why everyone thinks you&#39;re just not worth reading?

[Mattberg]

John,

Do you have a net worth of $2 million without your "house and horse"? That&#39;s what an attorney looks for. Making you spend money on a defense is something only corporations do when they want something non-monetary. I had two cases last year. Won both. Your making a case where there is none. No one is going to sue an SCCA official thinking about making money... You may hate the tort system and like to cry foul but I have fallen victim to it many times and still believe it works in the end. How many times have you been sued in the last five years? The small guy has little to worry about in most cases and is certainly safe from the type of frivilous litigation you&#39;re making reference too.

Conversely, you and others have been scared into that fear to the tune of $2 million a year (of other people&#39;s money) thinking there&#39;s a bigger risk than there is. It&#39;s unreasonable. The largest claim I can find on the books for an insurance claim (other than Fran Am) since 1998 is $35,000 in a single year (15 claims). And BTW, in the case of Fran Am? Joanne Jensen desrves to be individually liable. Our protecting her and the rest of the BoD who were in on it sickens me. She should be in jail. Carrying insurance to cover people like her only lets them act in the irresposible way she and the other BoD members did.

To my knowledge no individual has ever been sued. Another thing... I&#39;m not sure but perhaps there&#39;s someone out there that knows. I think your homeowner&#39;s insurance covers you personally. Don&#39;t own your home? You&#39;re really making a federal case out of nothing. :D



So...we should only look at "successful" litigation against race organizations & participants ? Oh my...how naive. [/b]

Yes. That&#39;s how you guage risk.

[charrbq]

Uhh...yea. Someone said without insurance no officials or workers would show up. Can you read?
[/b]
I&#39;m sorry, I don&#39;t always catch your logic or intent. I feel I&#39;m not alone in that problem. But what are you refering to, my previous post?

[JeffYoung]

Matt, enjoyed meeting you at Roebling a few years back. You were a good guy in person.

We just don&#39;t see this eye to eye so I&#39;ll leave it at that. No more posts from me. Good luck to you. While I disagree with a lot of what you say, I do think you think you are doing what is right.

Jeff

[Mattberg]

Would you pay $47,000 a year to insure your car?

[JeffYoung]

Trying....to ..... resist.........can&#39;t.....stop.....typing.....


The answer -- that depends on what the "car" is worth.

[Mattberg]

Trying....to ..... resist.........can&#39;t.....stop.....typing.....
The answer -- that depends on what the "car" is worth.
[/b]

Got a chuckle out of me... :D

The car isn&#39;t worth anything. Just insuring against the possibility of someone suing you vis-a-vis it&#39;s use. Think about it.

Sidenote:

In a letter I received yesterday from Jim Julow, president of SCCA, Inc., I was informed that Pete Lyon has resigned as general counsel, effective August 2006. Funny how there was no announcement. This whole thing stinks to high heaven.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Would you pay $47,000 a year to insure your car? [/b]

Depends on what my car was worth - and how many people actually owned it.

[lateapex911]

, I was informed that Pete Lyon has resigned as general counsel, effective August 2006. Funny how there was no announcement. This whole thing stinks to high heaven. [/b]

Pehaps we can have the next "Watergate" here...but hey, to lend it the seriousness it deserves, lets call it "Mattgate".

[CDS]

Would you pay $47,000 a year to insure your car?
[/b]

But you are not insuring your car. You are insuring yourself and everything you own against your negligent use of your car. Big difference.

I&#39;ve been following this with interest. I think it boils down to this:

Do we need insurance? Anyone with any business sense will agree we do. And as others have pointed out, we must have it to play at someone else&#39;s house (i.e. track rental requirements).

Are we paying too much for that insurance? Perhaps, but despite several references to documentation, I haven&#39;t seen anything that supports a conclusion one way or another.

I agree that the question needs to be asked, and the BOD needs to be forthcoming with full disclosure.

[Mattberg]

The question is then, would you pay $47,000 a year for your CURRENT auto insurance liability ONLY policy? :D You don&#39;t get collision, theft, etc. on your racecar.

[Mattberg]

The first order of business was the Insurance report by Pete Lyon. The bottom line here
is that a fairly significant increase in premiums will be required next year due almost
entirely to losses in the rally/solo areas. We continue to have concerns with out of
control vehicles at Solo events particularly at the finish line area. This fact gives great
emphasis to the necessity of Safety Stewards making sure that events are conducted in
complete compliance with our safety requirements, with special emphasis on the
location of finish lines at solo events, and spectator control at all solo and rally events.[/b]

Need I say more?

[shwah]

Since Matt didn&#39;t bother - that exerpt is from a letter Larry Dent, area 4 director BoD Meeting Report to Area 4 director wrote.

http://www.greatlakes-scca.org/system/file...ting+report.pdf (http://www.greatlakes-scca.org/system/files/Dec+2007+BoD+meeting+report.pdf)

[pgipson]

There is a great discussion on this topic over on the on the prod forum that is being led persuasively by someone with a similar login as Mr. Mattberg. Perhaps we could let this one die naturally and continue the discourse over there?

[Greg Amy]

Perhaps we could let this one die naturally and continue the discourse over there?[/b]
Party pooper...