Julow leaving SCCA

[RX3]

Embargoed – For Release 10/16/08 at 9am CDT

SCCA Begins Search Process for Executive Succession

TOPEKA, Kan. (Oct. 16, 2008) – Sports Car Club of America’s Board of Directors announced today that it has begun a process to find the Club’s next president. Current SCCA President and CEO Jim Julow informed the Board of his intention to leave the post at the end of his three-year contract, February 1, 2009.

“While we were saddened to hear that Jim will not be extending his contract, change brings opportunity,” SCCA Chairman R.J. Gordy said. “Jim has brought tremendous business operations acumen to the position, and we believe it has changed the business side of the Club in a very positive manner. We now look ahead to the opportunity to expand on what Jim has brought the last three years.”

Julow intends to serve his full contract that named him to the post in 2006.

“I will do everything I can to help transition SCCA to its next president,” Julow said. “It is a great organization with great members, and I will miss the interaction with the individuals that make the Club special. However, over the last several months, it has become clear that the Board and I disagree on the amount of change the Club needs and the pace at which that change needs to occur. For that reason, we differ philosophically, and it’s best for the Club and its future to make a change moving forward that will bring the board and its president much more into alignment.”

The new executive search will be led by a search committee, made up of members of the current SCCA Board of Directors with outside counsel. The Board has also determined a slight change in the duties of the position, including a title change to president and chief operating officer.

“We are seeking candidates with a strong background in marketing and business operations, as well as a solid understanding and appreciation of the Club’s culture,” Gordy said. “The president and COO will lead the staff in executing the policy set forth by the Board of Directors.”

Interested parties should e-mail resumes to [email protected] or fax to (785) 862-7190.

SCCA
Founded in 1944, Sports Car Club of America, Inc. is a 50,000-plus member motorsports organization that incorporates all facets of autocross, rally and road racing at both club and professional levels. It annually sanctions over 2,000 events through its 113 regions and professional subsidiary. Landmark events and series for the Club include the SCCA SPEED World Challenge Championships, the Club Racing National Championship Runoffs®, and The Tire Rack® SCCA Solo National Championships and ProSolo Championship. For more information, please visit www.scca.com.

[Mazmarc63]

You sending in a resume? You like Kansas, right?

[joeg]

Steve Johnson...

[Harvey]

Bring back Nick Craw!!!!!!!

[lateapex911]

Where there's smoke..........

The biggest single item I noted was the date.

He's quitting in the worst economy that many have ever seen. So, he must have something lined up, or really hate the job and the board. (AND have some money stashed)

[RSTPerformance]

I am mostly interested in what the Board and Jim don't agree on??? I think that while I have been fustrated at some of the BOD's initial decisions that effect us, I think in the longer run they have fixed things to my satisfaction (such as the Drivers Suit and H&N issues).

Raymond "Anyone know the real story?" Blethen

[gran racing]

It would be interesting to know what the background on this is. I'm a bit surprised with the amount of time both Steve and Jim stayed with SCCA.

I realize that this is old news, but I was upset to hear that Mike Dickerson, mgr region development, also left SCCA. I had the pleasure of speaking with him on many occasions recognized just how huge of an asset to SCCA he was. It's a shame.

[tnord]

I realize that this is old news, but I was upset to hear that Mike Dickerson, mgr region development, also left SCCA. I had the pleasure of speaking with him on many occasions recognized just how huge of an asset to SCCA he was. It's a shame.

I see Mike all the time at the track, he really is a good guy.

I think it's tough to say just what areas of club racing Julow was having an influence on, and what will change with his departure. The BOD are the only ones we really "see" pulling the strings.

[jjjanos]

I am mostly interested in what the Board and Jim don't agree on???

"... it has become clear that the Board and I disagree on the amount of change the Club needs and the pace at which that change needs to occur."

My hunch is that Julow wanted change and change now. The BoD didn't want to ruffle feathers.

Top quote John Nesbitt (from another board):

When looking for his successor, the Board has two distinct choices:

1. Hire an actual President/CEO, give him strategic direction, avoid meddling, and hold him accountable for producing results. This is unlikely for two reasons: first, it would be an unusual Board which voted to disempower itself; and, second, it flies in the face of SCCA culture and by-laws.

2. Acknowledge that the Board makes the actual decisions, and hire a General Manager to execute policy (make sure things happen) but not to make it.

There is a third choice, of course: hire someone, telling him that he will be President/CEO, and then proceed to hamstring him till he gives up and quits.

[dickita15]

I think this from the press release may say a lot about the Board’s position.
“The Board has also determined a slight change in the duties of the position, including a title change to president and chief operating officer.”

[tnord]

based on the board overturning their own class consolidation proposal.....i'd say the board is the stick in the mud.

[pgipson]

based on the board overturning their own class consolidation proposal.....i'd say the board is the stick in the mud.

I think that would be the opinion of a lot of people. So, given the season, does the membership (except for prod racers) want change. Or more of the same?

[jjjanos]

I think that would be the opinion of a lot of people. So, given the season, does the membership (except for prod racers) want change. Or more of the same?

Depends on what the change happens to be and that's the rub.

[tnord]

I think that would be the opinion of a lot of people. So, given the season, does the membership (except for prod racers) want change. Or more of the same?

...the opinion of those being consolidated perhaps? big surprise, the membership cares nothing but protecting their own turf and has no sense of the big picture.

[Knestis]

Members always want change to happen quickly, unless it's a change that they don't want.

SCCA is an organization whose mission is to promote competition. The problem with ANY decision in that kind of culture is that it's perceived - to some degree or another - as having winners and losers. And SCCA members don't want to lose.

K

EDIT - sorry, I need to add that my first reaction to the above is "Travis is right on." I need to acknowledge that as the root of what I posted.

[seckerich]

SCCA set a process in place for new classes and consolidation of existing classes based on participation. Fairly simple process where members "vote" with their wallets and the strong survive. Until the BOD changed the rules and started adding their pet spec classes "AKA enterprise" and skipped the rules. Classes were fast tracked to National status that displaced some of the lower subscribed and understandably drivers were pissed. Then the BOD and Comp board further screwed with the process by turning the GT and Prod rule sets upside down.

Get the politics out of the rules process and let the ad hoc for each class do their job. Look at the resurgence of IT with the stronger influence the ITAC has in our rule set. Imagine you are a prod or GT driver and your investment just became at best a part out with no option for resale? Reality is that classes will need to be combined to promote better racing. Two car parades are a waste of track time. Just let the drivers have more input into the decisions. My $.02 worth.

[tnord]

Reality is that classes will need to be combined to promote better racing. Two car parades are a waste of track time. Just let the drivers have more input into the decisions. My $.02 worth.

and didn't the board or crb solicit input for how best to combine SSC/B & T3/2 a few years ago and all the drivers had a big temper tantrum because that idea threatened their cakewalk path to a spot on TV at the runoffs?

the board needs to get some balls, just fucking do it, and let everyone bitch and moan for a couple years.....after that all classes will be better off for it.

fuck.

[Gary L]

Have another beer, Travis.

[tnord]

i haven't started drinking yet, as i still have a bit of a headache from last night's chili festival. but i think after a day filled with sanding trimwork and prepping walls.....i'll probably crack my last Leiney's Octoberfest.

[jjjanos]

Until the BOD changed the rules and started adding their pet spec classes "AKA enterprise" and skipped the rules. Classes were fast tracked to National status that displaced some of the lower subscribed and understandably drivers were pissed.

Understandably, yes. Justifiably, no. If classes with a 30+year history cannot maintain itself in the top 24 in terms of car counts, then waiting one/two years for the new classes to go through the process wouldn't have save the older classes. They were/are toast.

30 eligible classes. 7 were fast tracked. SM was a shoo-in for eligibility. There's your 24. Only new classes you've got to beat are FE and T3. Hell, the leaky-car classes couldn't get enough cars out of mothballs to beat an out-of-the-box, with no spares $50K car?

Then the BOD and Comp board further screwed with the process by turning the GT and Prod rule sets upside down.

I view that as an exercise in frustration and futility. The classes wouldn't act to save themselves and the higher ups intervened in a ham-fisted way in an attempt to save the classes from themselves.

Get the politics out of the rules process and let the ad hoc for each class do their job. Look at the resurgence of IT with the stronger influence the ITAC has in our rule set.

IT is a special case. We have a process and everyone runs through it. If a car sucks after the process, to bad. Prod/GT aren't as easy and worse yet - the ad hoc is where the political BS happens.

Worse yet, it seems that, having dropped the ball and created an ubercar after an adjustment, their solution is to give the other 99% an adjustment to catch up. Sanity says - fix the 1%. "Wow! Giving the Falcon the antimatter drive made it a super car. We need to allow every car the antimatter drive now."

Prod is broken beyond repair.