Toni,

You're right that last year two of the members of the IT-7 advisory committee took it upon themselves to request a spec tire for the class where there had been none before. You left out a very important piece of information. You neglected to mention that they did so only after talking to a LOT of their IT-7 competitors. I think everyone will agree that that is in line with the job that they signed up for. You also failed to acknowledge that the vast majority of their fellow drivers agreed with them about the spec tire - as indicated by the results of the previous ballot.

That whole process was exactly like that which took place when the DRIVERS got together a few years ago, decided that THEY wanted a regional class to race in, and worked very, very hard to get the class created. The DRIVERS took the initiative and made it happen. The DRIVERS did the same thing with the spec tire rule last year. The IT-7 class exists because of the effort of the DRIVERS. The same can be said for the IT-7 spec tire rule.

You've made numerous references to the openness of things now that you've taken over the reins. This serves to cast a shadow on what was done before. The previous ballot involved a concentrated effort to identify and contact all of the then current drivers. You've seen the numbers from that ballot. Are you in a position to show that your effort actually reached an equivalent number of the community? How many people sent you an opinion? How many were for the current spec tire rule, how many against? How many of the people that contacted you are current IT-7 drivers? Was there any effort made to identify them as such?

You've made numerous thinly veiled disparaging comments about the previous ballot. Are you in a position to show us how many people were not reached in the previous ballot? Please don't deflect the question with comments about not exposing people's personal information. After all, driver's names and member numbers continually appear on the result pages of the SEDIV website, regions publish and distribute membership directories, driver's names appear in the results printed in SportsCar, etc. Stop the secrecy and eliminate the confusion by simply telling us how many people have claimed that they were missed by the previous ballot?

You've made numerous references to the volume of complaints and comments that have been received. Again, stop the secrecy and eliminate the confusion by simply telling us how many people had complained about the current spec tire rule?

Yes, you received input that some of the drivers wanted the spec tire rule changed. That should have lead you to the conclusion that another ballot was needed not to the conclusion that the rule needed to be changed. Have you received sufficient input to indicate that the spec tire question needed to go before the drivers again? It's difficult to say without any actual data but probably - if for no other reason than to validate that it is still a good rule. It would be helpful if you would stop confusing the "need to gather input from the entire driving community about their desire to continue having the spec tire rule" with the "need to change, or remove, the spec tire rule".

You say that it is evident to you that the rules needed to be reviewed. Please explain why the large number of drivers that voted for the spec tire in the previous ballot doesn't make it evident to you that the driving community supports the spec tire?

Why do you imply that rubber stamping the currently stable rules would leave us with unstable rules for the next season? The norm is for the SCCA to keep the previous rules. The most intense reaction in the recent past has been to rules that were changed for questionable or unknown reasons. Let me remind you all of a few: the rally program, the two year harness rule, and moving the runoffs to Kansas. Changing a rule for the wrong reason is no better than refusing to change a rule.

You've pointed out how you didn't have to come to this forum and tell us any of this. While true, that philosophy doesn't exactly scream openness. Me, I had to come here and take up this battle. Why, because it's my SCCA, it's my class, and it's my fellow IT-7 drivers that have been disparaged.