Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Knestis]

As a PS to this thread, I have tendered my resignation from the ITAC, effective yesterday - essentially as a direct result of starting this thread.

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." That request was forwarded to me but I couldn't in good conscience comply, so I've left the committee.

This should NOT be construed as a criticism of Andy or the rest of the ITAC. They do a great job for the category, I was proud to have the chance to work with them, and I feel badly for being a quitter.

My "compelling need" to explain the source of the backlog of "please review" requests was set free here knowing that there was every chance that my action wouldn't be well received by the CRB. However, I tried *very* hard to make everything I said either factual or the expression of a concern of what might happen grounded in fact. I think I did a pretty good job maintaining that.

HOWEVER, Andy has pointed out that I conflated some cars that were spec'd outside the ITAC process (e.g., that Civic DX) with those set during the Great Realignment. He is absolutely correct that I misrepresented that situation. While that is an example of a car that got subjective weight added to it during its specification process, it was NOT done during the GR. I apologize for being inaccurate about that.

My tone went very negative in some of my posts re: the CRB's actions and the nature of what I was hearing from them but frankly, I was completely PO'd about the direction I saw the category being turned. I'm not going to apologize for being indelicate when explaining that I think we're on the edge of making a HUGE mistake for the category, going back to subjective additions of weight based solely on anecdotal observation of on-track activity.

Now, if history plays out that I'm wrong, that will be a good thing. I'm really bummed that it's come to this but there was only one option available to me that didn't require being disrespectful to Andy and the committee, ignoring the CRB's directive, or compromising what I believe the members deserve.

We now return you to your regular programming...

K

[frnkhous]

Sorry to hear this Kirk,

Sounds to me like the crb would like to move to back to smoke and mirrors and back room deals. Cars classed by the desire of somebody owning the car to have a competitive advantage. I think that asking for nobody to discuss possible class changes is kinda telling the members that they have no say in the club. Maybe i'm missing something. Sorry to hear you felt the need to leave the ITAC kirk. I'm actually more concerned now than I was before, I was pretty sure that between you and Jake Gulick we didn't have to worry about competition adjustments based on on track performances.

Brian,

Who doesn't think such actions by the crb are gonna improve anything and isn't sure why they made such a request. I can only assume they were getting letters/emails about possible changes and didn't want to deal with it.

[jjjanos]

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." That request was forwarded to me but I couldn't in good conscience comply, so I've left the committee.

Well that's complete and total bullshit. The member(s) of the CRB making such a suggestion should immediately resign. There is no place in this club for backroom deals and secret decisions. They aren't a bunch of freaking priests who, in secret conclave, decide whether we have to eat fish on Friday. Looks like its time to send a letter to the BOD.

Despite sparring with you, I thought you were doing a good job.

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I'm well and truly sorry to hear this. I can't say that I'm surprised at the backlash from the CRB, just sorry that it came to this. I applaud you sticking to your convictions. The category has lost a significant advocate. I also agree w/ Jeff, that kind of action from a member of the CRB is total BS. The person should be outed.

[Ron Earp]

As a PS to this thread, I have tendered my resignation from the ITAC, effective yesterday - essentially as a direct result of starting this thread.

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."

Kirk I'm really sorry to hear about that, all of it.

First off, I think your absence on the ITAC will be sorely felt. I always thought that you have had IT's best interests at heart. If you resigned from the ITAC, well, Danger Will Robinson! I'm worried. Thanks for all the hard work you did for all of us, much appreciated.

The public communication complaints from the CRB - that downright scares me. The great thing about the ITAC is that they are vocal, communicative, and actively seek member input. We don't want the opposite. What, they want you guys to go to the old "Thank you for your input (but we'll do what we bloody well like cause we're in charge!)" responses? Me thinks a big ol' black helicopter from HQ will be landing soon to take over IT.....resistance is futile

Clearly I'm not on the ITAC but I'll be starting some more polls in honor of your work.

Ron

[Andy Bettencourt]

For the record, the issue wasn't with the public comminication, it was the airing of the 'dirty laundy' while we were trying to clean it up internally. Right or wrong, the CRB wasn't excited about that.

Right now, IMHO, the CRB and ITAC are using one singular example of a classification to determine the overall philosophy of the class. It's an interesting excersize and will really mold how things are done in the future.

[seckerich]

Very sorry to hear that Kirk. I would have preferred you told them to kiss your A** and kept telling it like it is. You have always had my respect, especially when we disagreed. See you at the track.

[chuck baader]

Damn, Kirk, just damn. I had hoped that the CRB would understand that response and input from its customers is a good thing. I hope we don't go back to the secrete car club of America.

Thanks for all your hard work...and for all hard work of the other ITAC members. See you at the ARRC. Chuck

[erlrich]

I'm also sorry to hear this, but not terribly surprised. The old addage about big ships turning slowly really does apply w/r/t the SCCA, and considering we still have a lot of "old school" members on the board I can't imagine they were too pleased with having their laundry aired in public, even if that public is their own family. It sounds like you probably rocked the boat just a little too much, and the skipper didn't like it.

Welcome back to the unwashed masses.

[pfcs]

So sorry to hear this Kirk. You seemed to be one of the "elders" who would carry the flame of the essential IT concept and philosophy into the new millenium with integrity and creativity, preserving its greatness. This is a great loss to a community that is becoming increasingly reactive. Your reasoned and stable voice will be missed. I am not sanguine about the future, Phil

[Gary L]

Right now, IMHO, the CRB and ITAC are using one singular example of a classification to determine the overall philosophy of the class. It's an interesting excersize and will really mold how things are done in the future.

Wunnerful. IMHO, this is precisely the wrong thing to do... not unlike using the results from a single race to determine whether or not a car is misclassified.

Come back, Kirk!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Wunnerful. IMHO, this is precisely the wrong thing to do... not unlike using the results from a single race to determine whether or not a car is misclassified.

Come back, Kirk!

Actually, it is a great thing. The way the CRB chooses to handle this one case will set precident for how they could - or will handle other examples like it in the future. It is by this outcome that a continued direction, or new direction will be set. I don't hesitate to say that it will also probably determine who makes up the ITAC...because - as it should be - the ITAC needs to help the CRB carry out their charter and vision for IT.

[frnkhous]

Actually, it is a great thing. The way the CRB chooses to handle this one case will set precident for how they could - or will handle other examples like it in the future. It is by this outcome that a continued direction, or new direction will be set. I don't hesitate to say that it will also probably determine who makes up the ITAC...because - as it should be - the ITAC needs to help the CRB carry out their charter and vision for IT.

This almost makes it sounds like none of the current ITAC will be around a lot longer. I'm almost tempted to write/email daily the crb complaining about secretive practices which seem to encouraging using ontrack performance and not the process to control IT classifications. If this is all about the audi... Then the CRB member that made this comment needs to relieve themselves of the position. Kirk wanted people to be informed about the possiblity that competition adjustments, based on, on track performance from a car that wasn't even known to be legal might be taking place. The process by which most of the IT cars have been classed and v2.0 will make sure that all cars have been processed was basically being thrown out the window and stomped on and kirk is ask to step down for telling? Fuck that, that isn't airing dirty laundry that is informing the members of the Club, and remember it is a club, how the club is being run. Without IT members the CRB can deciede whatever they want, and the silent invisible cars will abide.

[Andy Bettencourt]

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.

[Knestis]

For the record, the issue wasn't with the public comminication, it was the airing of the 'dirty laundy' while we were trying to clean it up internally. Right or wrong, the CRB wasn't excited about that.

Right now, IMHO, the CRB and ITAC are using one singular example of a classification to determine the overall philosophy of the class. It's an interesting excersize and will really mold how things are done in the future.

Andy is right on. There's NO question the issue was that I was communicating - it's about what I was communicating, and to be fair, how.

But this is NOT ABOUT ME. This is about what the membership wants the category to be. It's ironic that prior to getting word from the CRB, I had taken the position that there wasn't much more that I could say about the danger of competition adjustments (bleah!) and rules creep in the category - that maybe we were finally to a place where a critical mass of current IT entrants were new enough that they didn't know the historical traps, and that no amount of evangelizing would shift their first principles.

That's what this thread was supposed to be about. If the CRB demonstrates by their handling of the Audi case that they're sticking with the old-school SCCA orthodoxy of the "Peterson Effect," AND you all agree it's right for IT, then everyone's a winner. But you'd better understand what you REALLY want, what you have to give up to get it, and how you'll decide if it was worth it.

K

[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.........

[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.

[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. . .