Quote Originally Posted by Peter Olivola View Post
To the contrary. A forum which publishes every request, whether submitted by a member or proposed by the Ad Hoc, CRB, BoD, Executive Stewards, etc., in the exact form it is submitted, not summarized, not abridged, is precisely what's needed.

Further, it should contain the submission date, receipt date and a complete status history as it is dealt with by the process.

The effects would be seen almost immediately and would be wide ranging and beneficial to not just the membership but all boards and committees. It would make not only the boards and committees responsible to the membership, it would make the membership responsible to the membership. Self-serving requests would be seen for what they are. The speed with which a request moves through the process would be a clear indication of where the requester stands in the "old school tie" system. Peer review would quickly curtail the patently frivolous and blatantly self-serving requests - no one wants to be embarrassed by their own stupidity - which would have the effect of reducing the work load on the boards and committees.

And it would put an end to the black helicopter response that is a direct result of the culture of opacity that controls SCCA decision processes. Instead of wildly speculative and frequently misinformed commentary on this and other category forums, there would be an opportunity to discuss real substance, much as Kirk tried to do (and look where it got him - see culture of opacity.)
Ok, where the hell am I?