SEDiv Driver Review Panel -- Chuck Hines (ITS and IT7)

[JeffYoung]

After an unfortunate number of incidents over the last few years, a group of drivers in the SEDiv are going to ask (pursuant to GCR 2.5) the SEDiv's Executive Steward to perform a Driver Review of ITS/IT7 driver Chuck Hines.

I have personally raced against Chuck many times, closely and cleanly, and I consider him a friend. At the same time, I have seen many incidents that in my opinion involved unaccetpably dangerous driving.

The sum of the situation is that there are two sides to the story, and we (the driver's group involved) are soliciting written opinions and video from anyone who has raced with Chuck over the last few years.

It is a shame that this has become necessary, but we are having competitors indicate they will not race if Chuck is on track. That is damaging to the region and the club as a whole.

[Greg Amy]

That's what the points system is for, guys. You toss paper at a driver over specific incidents, they get reviewed and discussed by the SOM, and points are applied to the competitor's license appropriately. Accumulation of points results in increasing sanctions (see GCR 7). You can't simply let this kinda stuff build up and then hope to later dump it all in one bucket; it's unfair to the competitor and unlikely to be properly presented and/or defended.

The protest system (GCR 8) is there for exactly this situation, and is designed to be a gradual increase in scrutiny of a competitor, rather than a sudden data dump of "I know you haven't been told about this before, but we're not happy with this guy, please do something about it."

I'm confident you (royal "you") may have walked up to him occasionally and said something, but if you've had an ongoing problem yet elected to not toss paper you have allowed the situation to fester. I suggest that absent this ongoing review, that it is improper to request a GCR 2.5 at this time. If you pursue this review you will have an uphill battle to present credible and defensible evidence against this competitor. At worst, you'll get "thanks for your input, we'll take it under advisement"; at best, the driver might be placed under closer scrutiny by subsequent event Chief Stewards (a system we have up here in NEDiv). However, these actions are unlikely to result in any immediate gratification (e.g., license probation or suspension) nor are you guaranteed that he will get noticed in detail, more likely lost among the other weekend responsibilities of the Chief Stew.

Use the protest system. It works.

GA, who knows absolutely ZERO about the specific situation(s), but wants to ensure this is done properly...

[JeffYoung]

Cross Post to RRAX.com

I appreciate the posts from guys who have far more experience than me in dealing with the GCR and the protest system. Here's what I can add/offer.

-GCR 2.5 is in "red" in this edition of the GCR; is it new? It cross references Section 7 but doesn't appear to be tied directly to it and seems to indicate (to me) that the Driver Review panel and Executive Steward have independent authority outside of the point system to review a license and take appropriate action (suspension/probation/send back to school, etc.).

--I agree with all that you have said in principle. However, the system hasn't worked here. While I agree with you that more should have been filed, the protests that have been filed have been deemed racing incidents due to the lack of intentional conduct, or light penalties have been issued. The problem is that all of them are viewed individually and the bigger picture is missed -- we have one driver involved in FAR too many "racing incidents."

--We are now to the point where I have more than a few ITS drivers in teh SEDiv saying they will not enter and run races with Chuck. The stewards frankly don't seem to be interested in getting involved in a situation where, in my opinion, Chuck drives fast and clean 95% but the 5% of the time causes a lot of problems and creates unacceptable risks for everyone else.

On Edit: After looking at 2.5, I would say this paragraph is designed precisely for this type of situation and gives the Driver Review committee the express authority to "invoke penalties under Section 7 (the points ladder) OR impose other penalties including license suspension. It also does not say the committee can only review formal protests; it says it can review formal protests AND a driver's conduct and "other matters."
It's not a pleasant or easy situation and there is no easy fix.
__________________

[Flyinglizard]

While I dont know the guy. An unfortunate # of car to car?? Really , the guy just needs to go away . Done.
My 5 cars combined, have had maybe 1 car to car in 20yrs.
Do whatever it takes, please.
Chuck Hines, gotit.

[240zdave]

I just got off the phone with John Williams, and he remembers seeing Chuck punt Zsolt into the wall at Road Atlanta. I'm not sure if it was last year or exactly when. I'll bet Zsolt would remember. :017:

[Harvey]

That's what the points system is for, guys. You toss paper at a driver over specific incidents, they get reviewed and discussed by the SOM, and points are applied to the competitor's license appropriately. Accumulation of points results in increasing sanctions (see GCR 7). You can't simply let this kinda stuff build up and then hope to later dump it all in one bucket; it's unfair to the competitor and unlikely to be properly presented and/or defended.

The protest system (GCR 8) is there for exactly this situation, and is designed to be a gradual increase in scrutiny of a competitor, rather than a sudden data dump of "I know you haven't been told about this before, but we're not happy with this guy, please do something about it."

I'm confident you (royal "you") may have walked up to him occasionally and said something, but if you've had an ongoing problem yet elected to not toss paper you have allowed the situation to fester. I suggest that absent this ongoing review, that it is improper to request a GCR 2.5 at this time. If you pursue this review you will have an uphill battle to present credible and defensible evidence against this competitor. At worst, you'll get "thanks for your input, we'll take it under advisement"; at best, the driver might be placed under closer scrutiny by subsequent event Chief Stewards (a system we have up here in NEDiv). However, these actions are unlikely to result in any immediate gratification (e.g., license probation or suspension) nor are you guaranteed that he will get noticed in detail, more likely lost among the other weekend responsibilities of the Chief Stew.

Use the protest system. It works.

GA, who knows absolutely ZERO about the specific situation(s), but wants to ensure this is done properly...

Greg

It is very unfortunate but I have been personally involved with similar situations in other classes here in the SE and have TRIED to use the proper system and the Powers to Be do nothing but tell the person being protested that he was a bad boy now go away and race and don't bother us. I don't know if this particular person has been protested or not but it would NOT surprise me at all to find out he has and nothing has been done.

[Ron Earp]

This thread exists on two forums but has much more activity over here:


[ Go to the "road race auto cross forum", you'll find the topic ]

[Knestis]

Oh, no, you dit'nt...!!1!

[Greg Amy]

Oh, no, you dit'nt...!!1!
Ron, I hope you don't mind, but I redacted your link to that forum. We're not supposed to link to it (user terms of agreement there), that way we avoid search robots and a whole lotta chaff that follows them...

Ron's right, there's a very spirited discussion there on this topic. - Greg

[Ron Earp]

Sorry guys, didn't know it was a problem. My apologies.

Ron

[Bryan88]

Although this driver hasn't hit my car yet.......I will be working to repair my brother's car which was almost totaled in one of these "incidents"......

This guy needs to have his license cut in half with a pair of scissors.......Just my opinion...

[Terry Hanushek]

Jeff


On Edit: After looking at 2.5, I would say this paragraph is designed precisely for this type of situation and gives the Driver Review committee the express authority to "invoke penalties under Section 7 (the points ladder) OR impose other penalties including license suspension. It also does not say the committee can only review formal protests; it says it can review formal protests AND a driver's conduct and "other matters."
It's not a pleasant or easy situation and there is no easy fix.

First, I believe that you are (and should be) pursuing GCR 2.4 (EXECUTIVE STEWARD’S DRIVER OR OFFICIAL REVIEW) rather than GCR 2.5 (CRB’S OFFICIAL REVIEW). I am not familiar with a CRB review but it appears to be limited to officials.

You are correct, the Executive Steward's review is intended for situations exactly like this. And it is completely independent of the penalty points system in GCR 7. The process is more comprehensive and less dependent of previous actions. Not every situation involves previous steward actions and penalties. We are current considering a driver review in NEDiv where no penalties have been assessed. (Rest easy Greg, you're safe :) ).

Greg does make a great point - the process of addressing a problem with an Executive Steward's Review is helped immeasurably with paper trail of previous actions (protest, CSA, RFA). If a pattern is emerging, competitors need to step up.

Terry

Like Greg, I do not know any of the individuals involved and am only trying to help explain the process.

[JeffYoung]

Check your GCR. Renumbered as 2.5

[Terry Hanushek]

Jeff


Check your GCR. Renumbered as 2.5

Yep, you are correct. I thought that I had checked the most recent version online but I must have suffered cursor-lag.

Terry

Not a great fan of continuously evolving rule books

[BruceG]

BTW.....the accused responded last night on the "other forum"......LOL. He receives points on his logbook already for bad punctuation amd elocution.

[JohnRW]

Follow the process. Document & verify.

Had a "problem child" (actually a problem senior citizen) in mixed class racing a few years ago. Prod guy, continually making messes involving SRF guys. I witnessed a few...I got an SRF race win due to one BIG one (Prod guy took out 3 SRF leaders as they lapped him on 3rd lap). Nice enough guy...just s-l-o-w and clueless. Would attempt to "get out of the way" of cars that were closing at +40-50mph speeds, when there was no way for them to react. Happened at multiple tracks.

Protests seemed to fail (lack of stewardly gumption, IMO). IIRC, an Exec Steward's Review was commenced and the driver was suspended, but on appeal the COA reversed and gave him his license back, as there was, other than "bitching afterwards". Whole process had to start over again. Prod guy finally retired. Problem solved (sort of...), but many cars & car parts in the dumpster.

There are some officials who don't want to deal with these sorts of problems...they just want to make the paperwork "go away" (poof !). Keep pushing...you have a right to have your protests addressed. Even if they won't admit it, there probably exists in each division a short little list of regular offenders. Offenders only get there if other racers raise their hands and bitch.

In the words of Ko-Ko, the Lord High Executioner:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NLV24qTnlg

It's not pleasant to put drivers on probation or suspension. I've been yelled-at and denounced as an idiot for that. Good thing that I don't have to offer a counter-argument for that...but it's not something that I relish going into a weekend.

Hell...I've done stupid stuff in a race car too. I think I've learned from each episode.

JRW
SCCA steward, racer and other unmentionable stuff.

(Feel free to cut & paste this over on RR-AX board, as I don't have an account there ...that I recall...everything before breakfast today is kinda fuzzy).

[preparedcivic]

I've been staying out of the Brown Board discussion, but frankly this is a healthy topic that needs to be put on the table. We've all experienced iffy drivers. My last race I got a punt in the RR, driving the outside of the Keyhole AFTER giving this particular SRF a point by. I saw him get loose in my right mirror, over correct and drive right into me. The video is up on my YouTube account. When I went to discuss it after the race, Mr. Rent-a-Wreck was full denial and revisionist history. That seems to be a common M.O. when someone takes the inside and does a dumb thing.

[Mark Gray]

That's what the points system is for, guys. You toss paper at a driver over specific incidents, they get reviewed and discussed by the SOM, and points are applied to the competitor's license appropriately. Accumulation of points results in increasing sanctions (see GCR 7). You can't simply let this kinda stuff build up and then hope to later dump it all in one bucket; it's unfair to the competitor and unlikely to be properly presented and/or defended.

The protest system (GCR 8) is there for exactly this situation, and is designed to be a gradual increase in scrutiny of a competitor, rather than a sudden data dump of "I know you haven't been told about this before, but we're not happy with this guy, please do something about it."

I'm confident you (royal "you") may have walked up to him occasionally and said something, but if you've had an ongoing problem yet elected to not toss paper you have allowed the situation to fester. I suggest that absent this ongoing review, that it is improper to request a GCR 2.5 at this time. If you pursue this review you will have an uphill battle to present credible and defensible evidence against this competitor. At worst, you'll get "thanks for your input, we'll take it under advisement"; at best, the driver might be placed under closer scrutiny by subsequent event Chief Stewards (a system we have up here in NEDiv). However, these actions are unlikely to result in any immediate gratification (e.g., license probation or suspension) nor are you guaranteed that he will get noticed in detail, more likely lost among the other weekend responsibilities of the Chief Stew.

Use the protest system. It works.

GA, who knows absolutely ZERO about the specific situation(s), but wants to ensure this is done properly...


Greg,
After he punted Steve Parish (#57 Silver 240z)into the wall on Saturday and then he punted me (#66 White BMW 325is) into pit wall on Sunday at Charlotte last year he was protested. All it did was put him on probation for a couple of weekends which he satisfied by running 2 races out of the area so he could go to the SIC clean. Meanwhile, Steve was out a very developed & competative car and I was out a NEW CAR on its second weekend!

The fact is the stewards and the racers all know his style... yet nothing has been done until now!

[JeffYoung]

Greg,
After he punted Steve Parish (#57 Silver 240z)into the wall on Saturday and then he punted me (#66 White BMW 325is) into pit wall on Sunday at Charlotte last year he was protested. All it did was put him on probation for a couple of weekends which he satisfied by running 2 races out of the area so he could go to the SIC clean. Meanwhile, Steve was out a very developed & competative car and I was out a NEW CAR on its second weekend!

The fact is the stewards and the racers all know his style... yet nothing has been done until now!

The review committee suspended his license for one year, with a probationary period to follow. My understanding is either the decision has been, or will be, appealed.

[zchris]

Well if he weasels out of it, there is always Frontier Justice. I had a guy take the back off my car once for no particular reason. I spent the next 2 races for the first couple of laps on his bumper turning him sideways. He never did it again. I had protested him. I was told it was a racing incident. He never protested me or bothered me again.
Chris

[JeffYoung]

Well if he weasels out of it, there is always Frontier Justice. I had a guy take the back off my car once for no particular reason. I spent the next 2 races for the first couple of laps on his bumper turning him sideways. He never did it again. I had protested him. I was told it was a racing incident. He never protested me or bothered me again.
Chris

I did want to add that regardless of how it came out, I was very impressed by the committee and their hard work. They reviewed a lengthy letter from me, video, 6 driver's statement and scheduled I believe 9 or 10 phone interviews of various folks. AND THEN they went out and looked at other information they collected on their own.

I would have respected their decision either way, given the amount of work they put into it. Much applause here for the effort.

Chuck is a good guy and a friend and if his suspension is upheld I'll miss racing with him, and he is entitled to his appeal. At the same time, I feel strongly that the SCCA needed to do something with him to get him to see he was taking too many chances with other people's cars, and I am glad they did that.

[lateapex911]

Jeff, as I said overt here in the sandbox, I think you've walked a tightrope on this one, and I hope your community appreciates the cost you have had to shoulder. Good job, it seems like this was handled well...finally....by the parties involved.

Hope that this sends a message so that it isn't allowed to get as out of hand in the future.

[Flyinglizard]

Good that something got done. Bad that it took about two years??
Maybe we should follow protocol better, and expedite this stuff.

This is really rare tho, thank goodness.

[slopok]

I did want to add that regardless of how it came out, I was very impressed by the committee and their hard work. They reviewed a lengthy letter from me, video, 6 driver's statement and scheduled I believe 9 or 10 phone interviews of various folks. AND THEN they went out and looked at other information they collected on their own.

I would have respected their decision either way, given the amount of work they put into it. Much applause here for the effort.

Chuck is a good guy and a friend and if his suspension is upheld I'll miss racing with him, and he is entitled to his appeal. At the same time, I feel strongly that the SCCA needed to do something with him to get him to see he was taking too many chances with other people's cars, and I am glad they did that.

Did you ever approach your friend and voice your concerns about his driving ability ? Just wondering and what is your relationship with your friend today ?

[Gregg]

I'm glad to see this take place and am very interested to see what happens when this reaches the court of appeals.

I've just posted something here (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=345175) that the NEDiv stewards are implementing that will either (1) lessen the need for a competitor-initiated driver review or (2) simply clean things up due to much better, consolidated record keeping of race incidents within the division.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=345175

Perhaps this is something that SEDiv should look at implementing if they haven't already.

[John Nesbitt]

I'm glad to see this take place and am very interested to see what happens when this reaches the court of appeals.

I've just posted something here (http://www.nediv.com/?option=com_etree&view=displays&layout=users&category=6) that the NEDiv stewards are implementing that will either (1) lessen the need for a competitor-initiated driver review or (2) simply clean things up due to much better, consolidated record keeping of race incidents within the division.

http://www.nediv.com/?option=com_etree&view=displays&layout=users&category=6

Perhaps this is something that SEDiv should look at implementing if they haven't already.

Those links seem to point to a list of NEDiv officials.

You can find a write-up on the NEDiv Redbook here: http://driverinfo.johnnesbitt.com/

It's at the bottom left - Letter #3.

[lateapex911]

Did you ever approach your friend and voice your concerns about his driving ability ? Just wondering and what is your relationship with your friend today ?
At the risk of speaking out of class so to speak, I have read that Jeff and other did indeed confront Chuck, and they have been rebuffed, numerous times. Jeff has been very upfront and has sent him links to the threads, and he has responded on a thread over on the brownboard. It would appear that he disagrees that there is a problem. Jeff has stated a number of times that he likes and enjoys being around Chuck, but I'm not aware of the current status of the relationship.


I'm glad to see this take place and am very interested to see what happens when this reaches the court of appeals.

I've just posted something here (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=345175) that the NEDiv stewards are implementing that will either (1) lessen the need for a competitor-initiated driver review or (2) simply clean things up due to much better, consolidated record keeping of race incidents within the division.

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?p=345175

Perhaps this is something that SEDiv should look at implementing if they haven't already.
Greg, I read over on the brownboard that the appeal was flatly denied. The board was rather complimentary in regards to the panels work.
(I agree with you about the whole redbook concept and wouldn't mind it being a searchable national database.)