Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Bill Miller]

It's just not as serious as you make it sound. It's not a secret, not going to be a secret or anything like that. The CRB is hopefully going to define for the ITAC how they will operate wrt classifications. It's ok, really. It may certainly impact the tenure of some current ITAC members but in the end, the CRB needs a team that will help them fullfill their charter.

I'm sorry Andy, but this sure seems like the tail wagging the dog. You make it sound like the CRB needs another group that will validate their methodology. It was my understanding, that the whole reason the AdHoc's existed was to drive things from the bottom up. Not rubber stamp things from the top down, and do a bunch of grunt work.

Sure will be interesting to see what IT looks like in 3-5 years.

[frnkhous]

Like the Great realignment never happened. I do think that if the answer is to force the ITAC to align it's suggestions with what the CRB wants(tail wagging the dog), we will know soon enough because no matter what is said or done, other members of the ITAC will voluntarily resign soon as well.

[pballance]

.....A member of the CRB passed on to the ITAC chair that they were "frustrated with the public communication on IT.com about some of the issues we are working on," and that we should "cease any such comments, polls, whatever." ..........
K

THIS bothers me, not a little but a LOT. I have stayed quiet in this thread and some of the others because I have FAITH in the ITAC to do the right thing for the GOOD of the class and the competition. The only way that they can represent MY views is by asking ME what I think and doing so in a public manner. Other posters have represented views similar to myh own so I felt no need to contribute at this time.

The CRB should be as open and receptive to member input as the ITAC has been.

I have read elsewhere that there may be other issues that we are not aware and I hope those issues are resolved without the ITAC losing it's credibility with the racers in IT.

Kirk, THANK YOU for your service, THANK YOU for standing on your principals, and THANK YOU for being willing to OPENLY share with those who race alongside of you.

TO THE CRB: (since we know you lurk here) You had better start listening to those you serve, we the lowly IT racers, we are active, we will continue to support the ITAC. IF you want to see drivers leave to race with another sanctioning body, continue to act in a manner that supports the Secret Car Club of America.

Paul Ballance
and so you don't have to look for it member# 349066

[tom91ita]

sorry to hear this Kirk.

i suppose my 1st gen crx si will be going from ITB back to ITA?

or H5.........

[seckerich]

THIS bothers me, not a little but a LOT. I have stayed quiet in this thread and some of the others because I have FAITH in the ITAC to do the right thing for the GOOD of the class and the competition. The only way that they can represent MY views is by asking ME what I think and doing so in a public manner. Other posters have represented views similar to myh own so I felt no need to contribute at this time.

The CRB should be as open and receptive to member input as the ITAC has been.

I have read elsewhere that there may be other issues that we are not aware and I hope those issues are resolved without the ITAC losing it's credibility with the racers in IT.

Kirk, THANK YOU for your service, THANK YOU for standing on your principals, and THANK YOU for being willing to OPENLY share with those who race alongside of you.

TO THE CRB: (since we know you lurk here) You had better start listening to those you serve, we the lowly IT racers, we are active, we will continue to support the ITAC. IF you want to see drivers leave to race with another sanctioning body, continue to act in a manner that supports the Secret Car Club of America.

Paul Ballance
and so you don't have to look for it member# 349066

Pissing in the wind Paul. When was the last time you voted for a CRB member? Go to the club bylaws and see how the game is played. I hope I am wrong what is about to happen with IT.

[trhoppe]

Is Peter Keane one of the idiots on the CRB? Cause that guys is a real tool based on what I've seen him post on sccaforums.com. I do not want him having anything to do with IT.

Sorry to hear this Kirk, I thought you were one of the better things that happened to IT

-Tom

[cooleyjb]

Is Peter Keane one of the idiots on the CRB? Cause that guys is a real tool based on what I've seen him post on sccaforums.com. I do not want him having anything to do with IT.

Sorry to hear this Kirk, I thought you were one of the better things that happened to IT

-Tom

List of CRB from Fasttrack minutes

Bob Dowie, Chairman; Chris Albin, Fred Clark, Jim

Drago, Dave Gomberg, Russ McHugh, and Peter Keane.

[Xian]

Not a whole lot to add but it sounds to me like the CRB is making (has made!) some serious errors. If they're going to start calling the shots and try to load the ITAC with those who agree with them then things will spiral downhill pretty quickly. I understand that we're not "there" yet but seeing someone like Kirk step down isn't a good sign.

Kirk, thanks for all the hard (and often) thankless work you did. I imagine it was tough catching flak over the way things worked. :toast:

Christian

[gran racing]

Wow! Kirk, sad to see you off the ITAC. Regardless of what you're thinking, you've severed your purpose and have impacted things.

CRB, it's time to listen to what members are saying. I absolutely agree that the ITAC or whatever board "regulates" various racing categories in our club needs to be open and accessible. This ITAC group more than ever has been just that and it's absolutely been a good thing. In the past, crap would happen behind closed doors. Many people believed (right or wrong) decisions were based upon politics. This happens to the biggest board where IT conversations are discussed. Having the ITAC involved, posting, and seeking input is absolutely a good thing.

Yeah, it's tough not to be concerned right now and jump to conclusions.

On edit - okay, I'm actually pissed right now and trying not to react.

[lateapex911]

Guys, before you all dive off the deep end, read what Kirk wrote again. I see some serious jumping to conclusions here.

And remember who the bosses are: BoD > CRB > ITAC.

In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.

To that end, I've always tried to talk to members, and to try and get the pulse of members. Of course, members are usually self centric, at least in the day to day stuff. It's sometimes hard to force their thinking into the 10,000 foot view. That's, I think, what the committees are supposed to do -distill the members often conflicting wishes into effective policy.

In any case, let's not hurl stuff at the CRB before the facts are out. There's always two sides to the story. And that the difference between dark gray (black) and light gray (white) can be as little as 1%.

And remember, the CRB answers to the BoD. Hint hint, nudge nudge.

(insert standard :"if you want your world the way you want it, get involved, make your opinions known, talk to your reps, vote, vote, vote")

[lateapex911]

Wow! Kirk, sad to see you off the ITAC. Regardless of what you're thinking, you've severed your purpose and have impacted things.

What, that's a great typo, LOL>

[Greg Amy]

I deleted a post above because it contained private information - home mailing address and telephone numbers - of the CRB members. Regardless of the fact that I agree with the basis premise behind this post, I firmly believe this way over-the-line.

If you disagree with me, feel free to select the "report post" button on the upper-right corner and report it to the board owner/webmaster.

GA

[gran racing]

:026: Guess he'll need to build a Golf IV now. LOL

While I agree with your org chart, I don't necessarily agree that's the reality although it should be.

[Conover]

List of CRB from Fasttrack minutes

Bob Dowie, Chairman; Chris Albin, Fred Clark, Jim

Drago, Dave Gomberg, Russ McHugh, and Peter Keane.

:eek:

Andy, I have to say, it does sound as if your advocating Yesmanism. For some reason I've never dug deep enough to find out who actually makes up the CRB. My naivety had me thinking it was some wise court of old timer racing geeks.

IT is regional, IT has a core philosophy, and IT is for the membership. What's the fastest way to kill something? Drain the blood out? Take a turn away from core ideals that IT competitors share, the rank and file IT competitor gets a big wet towel thrown on them, they are the life blood of the category. Piss them off and drive them away and you have a failure as immediate as a perforated crank case, up in smoke and screeching to a halt.

It's fairly simple, and utterly obvious based on your statements above, Andy, I have to share the perspective of some of the rest here. If anyone is rubber stamping anyone, it should be the CRB acting on the recommendations of the ITAC, and not the other way around.

The membership is asking for transparency, most have been utterly supportive of the ITAC, understanding that the process in general is time consuming and that you are all volunteers. Now we're all being told that we do not have any representation, and "oh by the way, taxes are gonna go up, so get ready!"

Makes a guy want to vote third party. . .

[Andy Bettencourt]

I didn't design the system, I just volunteer in it. I knew how it was going in and it is the same now as it was then.

I most certainly am not adopting any such viewpoint. All I want people to understand is that there is an issue between the committees that is on the table for debate and when that debate is over, the dust will settle where it may.

I for one, don't care if the CRB tells me to tone it down on BB's, I talk too much on here anyway. . What I do hold dear are a few core principles that *I* believe makes IT great. If the foundation that those principles are built on develops a crack, then I will be the first to step aside and let the CRB do what they do. They are, afterall, responsible for Club Racing.

[lateapex911]

:eek:

Andy, I have to say, it does sound as if your advocating Yesmanism. .......
It's fairly simple, and utterly obvious based on your statements above, Andy, I have to share the perspective of some of the rest here. If anyone is rubber stamping anyone, it should be the CRB acting on the recommendations of the ITAC, and not the other way around.

The membership is asking for transparency, most have been utterly supportive of the ITAC, understanding that the process in general is time consuming and that you are all volunteers. Now we're all being told that we do not have any representation, and "oh by the way, taxes are gonna go up, so get ready!"

Makes a guy want to vote third party. . .

I don't think Andy is being a 'yesman" at all. And I don't think anyone has said anything about no representation, and taxes going up.

I *think* what Andy (and I) are saying is that the ITAC is discussing things with the CRB...and we really don't know much more than that...

I imagine if we and the CRB sat around a table and had a few beers, we'd have a productive conversation. We just need to do that.

As for taxes, representation and all that, it never hurts to talk to your BoD member in person or via email, or your CRB rep. It's my opinion that I work for the CRB, and they work for the BoD...who works for YOU. I work for you then, but I do it via them. I can tell them what you think, and make my recommendations based on my analysis of my dealings and talks with the membership, but the BoD will have the clearest picture if it isn't delivered to them like telephone tag...

I've always suggested, if you like what the ITAC says they are trying to do, tell the big guys, if you don't like it, tell the big guys!

[Bill Miller]

Guys, before you all dive off the deep end, read what Kirk wrote again. I see some serious jumping to conclusions here.

And remember who the bosses are: BoD > CRB > ITAC.

In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.

To that end, I've always tried to talk to members, and to try and get the pulse of members. Of course, members are usually self centric, at least in the day to day stuff. It's sometimes hard to force their thinking into the 10,000 foot view. That's, I think, what the committees are supposed to do -distill the members often conflicting wishes into effective policy.

In any case, let's not hurl stuff at the CRB before the facts are out. There's always two sides to the story. And that the difference between dark gray (black) and light gray (white) can be as little as 1%.

And remember, the CRB answers to the BoD. Hint hint, nudge nudge.

(insert standard :"if you want your world the way you want it, get involved, make your opinions known, talk to your reps, vote, vote, vote")

Damn, where did I put my hip boots?????

In MY opinion, that's not exactly accurate, I think it's more like:

Members > BoD > CRB > ITAC.

Spoken like a true politician Jake. The members haven't run this club in a loooooong time. And spare me your "but the members vote in the BoD rhetoric".

Any time you have people in positions that impact policy decisions, that are appointed by those above them, you create a situation where the appointees are subject to political pressure from above.

I don't think anyone on this board would characterize Kirk as a loose cannon, and to have the CRB (be it the entire board, or one individual), attempt to gag him, when he's doing what he feels is in the best interest of his constituency, is pure BS. Rather than actually deal w/ the issue(s) directly and openly, the CRB have chosen to keep it in the shadows and quiet the person that brought it to light. It's interesting to see who the people are, that are defending the CRB's actions.

Greg,

Tough call on that one. I probably would have been inclined to leave that info, as I think people in those kinds of positions should be accessible. But I can certainly see your point in removing it.

[lateapex911]

http://www.roadraceautox.com/showthread.php?t=25324

[gran racing]

Greg,

Tough call on that one. I probably would have been inclined to leave that info, as I think people in those kinds of positions should be accessible. But I can certainly see your point in removing it.

Eh, that was probably a good move. All that information can be found by logging into the SCCA site and downloading the large contact information PDF. It contains every board, and each person who has a position on a region level's info. This just ensures people don't simply react and take some time to give thought to their response.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It's interesting to see who the people are, that are defending the CRB's actions.

All I will say from here on in is that you don't know the whole story. Simple. 2 weeks from now, there will be a decision made, sides taken and information given.

I posed the question we are debating on this very forum and it got little play.