Insurance

[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?

[Joe Harlan]

Hey Joe, is Matt going to moderate your new site?
[/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.

Sorry.....Carry on !

Mark

[Mattberg]

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

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. 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?