...what is yor definition of the 'root problem' and how would you fix it?[/b]
You didn't ask me but I'm going to answer anyway, although none of these suggestions are anything that hasn't been said before...

1. Initiate a policy to stop trying to resolve enforcement issues with changes to the ITCS/GCR - rules and the enforcement of rules pose two entirely different policy problems, with different solutions.

2. Go through the book and get rid of EVERY SINGLE clause that specifically prohibits something.

3. Make IIDSYCYC and the "tortured interpretation" clause functional guidelines for enforcement.

4. Establish an online system to documemt protest and appeals findings, accessible to all members.

5. Codify standards of precedent. If a protest in NEOhio finds this airdam (picture attached) not in compliance with ITCS XX.XX.X.XX, other tech inspectors/stewards are expected to abide by that finding as long as it stands. An appeal to the CoA has the power to either reinforce or reverse that finding, thereby setting the ultimate precedent on the question - whether it finds in favor or against the original ruling. Both levels of precedent are documented and available for all to see.

Stewards' rulings on any subesquent protest, in any other region on the same substantial point are then expected to align. If it is found on CoA review that race officials' findings on the same airdam issue are NOT in alignment with precedent, they are then subject to sanction for not following the pertinent GCR guidelines.

Of course, that same CoA may find that there are differences enough in the substance of the protest and/or ruling (say, that two protests address different specific aspects of the definition of "traction bar"), and find in favor of the original protest WITHOUT sanctioning the officials - essentially determining that they acted in good faith. OR it might reverse the original ruling, negating the precedent. Regardless, whatever precedent is in place at the time of any given protest stands: This is less about being Right and more about being consistent.

* * *

I think it was Jake who asked if we wanted to trust the protest and appeals process to sort this issue out. The answer is that, at THIS point there's NO point in going through all of that hassle, since it won't make a lick of difference five minutes after the CoA issues its findings.

There should never have been a "clarification" of the SB issue - it should have been protested and appealed, and the findings should have established that this particular interpretation of the alternate busing material allowance was either acceptable or unacceptable. The issue would have lost steam and we'd have stopped talking about it. And racers and officials would be more invested in the process, knowing that their decisions are fodder for club member review, will leave a legacy, and may open them to sanctions should it be found that they are substantially outside of established standards of interpretation.

It's very possible that none of the people involved in this conversation has enough political capital to attack this issue at its root. If that's the case, then we just accept the reality and move on but diddling with the written rules is never going to make this issue go away - and will likely just create other, new problems.

K