ITAC News.

[Ron Earp]

I'm quite happy he is communicating. He's doing a good job and his efforts are much more than what many thought we might see out of the new ITAC what initially (from various reports) wasn't going to communicate much at all.

But Kirk makes a point, anything can be told to one member can be told to all members, or written to all members.

The internet forums have a huge advantage - written record, that word of mouth does not have. Did you ever play that little kid's game where you tell the first kid something and it goes around the room through word of mouth to all the other kids? The input and output of this process never match.

[IPRESS]

I'm quite happy he is communicating. He's doing a good job and his efforts are much more than what many thought we might see out of the new ITAC what initially (from various reports) wasn't going to communicate much at all.

But Kirk makes a point, anything can be told to one member can be told to all members, or written to all members.

The internet forums have a huge advantage - written record, that word of mouth does not have. Did you ever play that little kid's game where you tell the first kid something and it goes around the room through word of mouth to all the other kids? The input and output of this process never match.

Yeah the internet banter is how all business should be conducted. This place is home of the "black helicopter society".
I would hope that Josh (and the rest of the CRB /ITAC) will operate the best way he sees fit.

And really.........You guys had your shot at running things, and did a nice job, but ya'll left, now some other bunch needs to have their chance, how about letting them have a shot before you PICK PICK PICK at every little thing. They seem to have broken down the stalemate and have things starting to get better as far as civil CRB / ITAC stuff goes.

[lateapex911]

I think it's GREAT that Josh is posting here, and I applaud it. I also agree that having 'town hall" conference calls would be awesome. I in fact, suggested a 'tent meeting" at the ARRC, but response to that idea was lacking.

But Kirk makes a fair point. Writing things in a public forum is a great way to have things on a public record, where anyone can see them...that is truths best ally. I see Josh's point about things being mis read or misunderstood. Well, choose the words carefully. Besides, IF that happens, a correction can be issued.

Mac, I'll tell you why I "left". I "left" because members, (like YOU) who were my bosses, were asking questions. To answer those questions honestly, I had to expose wrongdoing on the part of my superiors, the CRB. Perhaps 'wrongdoing" isn't the best choice of word, but, the information I needed to reveal was certainly something the CRB wanted to be unsaid. But, when you agree to do the job, you agree to abide by your superiors desired level of communication. Read between the lines: If they don't want you saying something, you can't. The CRB reached the end of it's rope with me when I was relating things that weren't complimentary about their methods and actions.

That's BS. My thinking is that if they don't want me posting stinky poop, don't let there BE stinky poop! Having a system that insulates itself in that manner propagates that behavior!*

I challenge you to read all my posts on the subject and find one item that was wrong.

The members deserve to know what's going on, what policies are in place that are creating the landscape on which they race, and they have a right to have a voice in those matters.

I applaud Josh's efforts, and I know he's working under a close watch. I hope he can see a way to ensure that what information he is allowed to disseminate is done unilaterally.
To the CRB: If he is allowed to speak with one, he must be allowed to say the same thing to all. It's just that simple.

* Further, Mac, you came on and posted "inside information" that you had heard that added information about the CRBs opinion of the iTAC that the ITAC didn't know! WTF is THAT all about!?!?!?! What kind of way to run a business is THAT!?! If one organization has something to say to the other, SAY IT, or examine your self and decide why you can't, or don't want to say it. But telling others "on the side". Hello? That's just BS. I'll add one thing...no CRB member ever read anything about my opinion on a board that wasn't mentioned on a con call.

[IPRESS]

We have been over this plenty of times.
You guys worked hard and did a great job.
You guys and the CRB got crosswise.
The CRB & the ITAC sort of got in a stalemate.
The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through. Should be optimistic times for the internet IT crowd.


Jake, People will always have info that others don't just because as racers we are around different people. If I hear something and draw an opinion you can take it or leave it. It is just one opinion. I didn't post that I felt the CRB members were getting fed up with how the ITAC was presenting their case, as a knock on the ITAC. I posted it in hopes that you guys could work out a solution. Things were evidently too far gone at that point. Here is a take it or leave it. Six to Eight years is all anybody should serve on a committee. Blend in new people and new ideas with past history. Just one opinion.... could be right or could be wrong. A good talker might convince me tomorrow that committes for life are best....I am easily influenced.
As Rodney Daingerfield said while passing out twentys in Caddyshack, "Keep it Fair, keep it fair!"

[Ron Earp]

The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through. Should be optimistic times for the internet IT crowd.

Actually, I'd suggest just the opposite is true. Used to be all sorts of interest and chatter over new happenings in the ITAC, rules proposals, etc. Not any more. Boards are dead unless we're discussing something other than IT racing.

Look back at the period from 2006-2009 - The Realignment, ITR, new cars classed - many changes happened in IT during that period that I submit would never have occured without the open nature of the ITAC and the exchange of ideas between the ITAC and regular members. Now, it seems times have changed and open two-way transparent communication is not the norm for the ITAC / Member interface. Or, at least it seems that way to me.

Still, Josh's efforts are appreciated. I just hope more ITAC members choose to interact with the regular folks.

[tnord]

i would suggest that not-discussing the possibility of YET ANOTHER round of major changes to the category is a very, very good thing.

Writing things in a public forum is a great way to have things on a public record, where anyone can see them and interpret the same sentence ten thousand different ways, likely in the direction of whatever their personal bias may be.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with you that 3-4 years on a committee is enough.

On communication, I find the Internet to be the best way to stay in touch with IT racers across the country. If you care about IT, you read and post on rr.autox.com, or IT.com. I reach more people, and hear more about competing viewpoints, that way than any other.

Moreover, two of the biggest recent changes to IT -- the process and the addition of ITR -- were Internet based initiatives.

So, I have a hard time with those who think that the internet and communication via it are problematic. Sure, issues come up, but on the whole, the internet has been a positive for the development of IT.

I absolutely do not like the idea that committee work should be protected, etc. This is a club, with members, and they need to know what is going on. I do acknowledge that there needs to be some structure to that communication, and on occasion I and other ITAC members have crossed lines to inappropriate means of communication. But at the core, any attempt to cut members off from information or from the decision making process is very problematic in my view.

And, also, thanks to Josh for taking the lead on trying to come up with a communication method that works.

[JoshS]

Just to make it clear -- while there were a lot of proposed rule changes on our agenda this month, none of them were initiated by the ITAC, they all came in through letters from the membership. As I said earlier to Tom, we discuss every rule change proposal that comes in.

If the proponents of these proposals want to also take the concepts to public forums, they are welcome to do so (as Tom did with the engine mounts.) If that happens, we ITAC members might involve ourselves in public discourse about the merits of the idea. And if we do that, we're doing it as club members and drivers and car builders, not as ITAC members.

That would be a very different idea from taking an idea that comes in from a member as a letter, and then the ITAC post to some forums about that to get member input. The member input process for the club is already laid out -- the advisory committees and the CRB can either ask for member input via Fastrack prior to actually making a rule change proposal, or the CRB can make a proposal and member input comes before the BOD approval phase.

Maybe someday the member input process could involve the internet instead of Fastrack publications and letters, but as of right now, that's the process.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through.

Like what?

[IPRESS]

Like what?

OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.


Travis I thought you quit and joined a country club.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OH I don't know maybe I was thinking that lately the CRB has opened back up consideration of things involving IT. Seems like some cars were classed or reclassed. Just from outside looking in it seems Josh and his crew have been able to overcome the "stop the presses" stalemate of late fall. I don't know if that is good or bad.

Using the Process was never a question for cars new to IT. The stalemate hinged on currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

I haven't seen any evidence that they have backed off that. Maybe the current ITAC believes in the concepts.

[tnord]

Travis I thought you quit and joined a country club.

well, i golf 2x/week and i am actually looking at a country club....and no racing thus far this year. i am headed back to the dyno this weekend though.

[jjjanos]

They seem to have broken down the stalemate and have things starting to get better as far as civil CRB / ITAC stuff goes.

Well that's a no-brainer. German-French relations improved too with the move of the government seat from Paris to Vichy.

"A running theme during all of the discussions above was about the philosophy of IT and its place in the whole club racing program, with input from our CRB liaisons, of course. We discussed who our members are, who we want our members to be, etc"

I.e. If the ITAC does exactly what the CRB wants, there is no conflict. I question the competence of the CRB to discuss ANYTHING related to the philosophy of IT, who races IT and what IT racers want. They may be experts in where they want IT to fit into the entire program, but that simply means that IT is going to get screwed to save the FUBAR situation they have made of National racing and the Runoffs.

The present ITAC seems to have regenerated interest in points you guys had been trying to get pushed through. Should be optimistic times for the internet IT crowd.

Ummm, I see very little to nothing to suggest this. The mess of ITB weights/specifications has been kicked to the curb and the CRB has imposed a hare-brained, scattershot method of car classification/correction on the category.

The MR2 situation remains resolved incorrectly; there's an overdog in ITB; both situations are already hurting car counts in at least one series and the CRB has officially shut the door to corrections. Based on their interpretation of the rules, the MR2 weight issue is a closed issue.

[Ron Earp]

And really.........You guys had your shot at running things, and did a nice job, but ya'll left, now some other bunch needs to have their chance,

That "some other bunch" is still made up of many of the "old bunch", no pun intended. As I understand it one of the ITAC members has been on there for 15 years.....talk about a poster child for term limits.....

Committees in the SCCA need a couple of changes:

1. Term limits.
2. Committee members MUST be active participants in the racing the committee oversees.

[erlrich]

Committees in the SCCA need a couple of changes:

1. Term limits.
2. Committee members MUST be active participants in the racing the committee oversees.

Agree 100% with both of those

[JeffYoung]

Ditto.

We need to make a rule proposal in that regard. I'll do a letter request to the ITAC and see if I can get them to adopt it as a policy, but it really should be in the GCR or the Bylaws or whatever "controls" the committees.

[Ron Earp]

1. Term limits.
2. Committee members MUST be active participants in the racing the committee oversees.

One more:

3. Committee members must recuse themselves from voting on an issue that would directly affect the IT class they race in with respect to competition within that class - i.e., mainly car classifications.

This would do a couple of things, keep the member honest and insure the ITAC is populated evenly from all IT classes so it doesn't get paralyzed on a particular class/vote.

[gran racing]

Josh - this is what drives me nuts about our current situation. As more and more cars are classes using the new measuring stick, the previously classed cars are going to suffer more and more.

currently classed cars that were way outside their Process weight and the refusal of the CRB to apply the same measuring stick to both as well as the introduction of the concept of 'on-track performance' and 'like achitechture' to the classification equation.

This needs to be addressed for all IT classes and a push needs to come from the ITAC, and the BOD hopefully will step in. The good news is that IT is not the only category experiencing issues in how things are being handled by the CRB. Nice, real nice.

[Knestis]

One more:

3. Committee members must recuse themselves from voting on an issue that would directly affect the IT class they race in with respect to competition within that class - i.e., mainly car classifications.

This would do a couple of things, keep the member honest and insure the ITAC is populated evenly from all IT classes so it doesn't get paralyzed on a particular class/vote.

You mean both ITAC and CRB members of course, but particularly the latter - I hope. Right now, the default in the CRB is that members pretty much manage decisions in the categories they understand. That means a really huge concentration of power on a couple of people.

Looking back, my greatest "Oh, crap" realization - stoopid after 20+ years doing this - was that the CRB does NOT make decisions as a body, where category-specific issues are concerned. At least not in the way I pictured in my naiave little head...

K

[JeffYoung]

I like the CRB guys, but I do not have a clear picture as to how their decisions are made either. I assume it is a vote, but I also get the feeling (possibly wrong) that the liasion to a particular committee really can set the tone for the vote (meaning influence it).