SCCA Letter Writing Campaign (Solo) - Please Read
Jan 22, 2009, 07:23 PM
#1
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
SCCA Letter Writing Campaign (Solo) - Please Read
Please read this thread and send your letter this weekend to seb@scca.com regarding setting a timeframe before the SEB can send items to the BOD.
http://sccaforums.com/forums/341763/...ad.aspx#341763
In a nutshell...
Right now, there is no set/mandated timeframe that the SEB has to wait before they send items up to the BOD.
Fastracks are published online around the 20th to the 23rd of the month before the month they become effective.
In there are items that get sent out out for member comment.
In a recent case, the Sept FasTrack was published on the 20th of Aug. asking for feedback on the STS to ST and STS2 to STS class name changes.
The SEB met by conference call on Aug 27th and pushed a rule change through to the BOD, 4 days before the effective date of the FasTrack, and leaving only 1 week for those that get the e-mail notification to write in on the rule change, never mind those that still get the FasTrack mailed to them. (Log in to your SCCA.com account and the options are at the bottom.)
Recently I did an informal poll on SCCAForums.com and NASIOC and over 1/2 of the people that responded, voted that they take over 1 week to respond.
What does this mean? Certain rules changes are getting made in too short of a time frame.
So please, write a letter within 3 days to seb@scca.com asking for the SEB to either a) put a date when they need/expect answers by with the 'out for member comment' notice or b) make it that nothing gets sent up that was just put out for member comment in the previous months FasTrack. Get your letters logged because I think my one letter is not going to change anything.
--kC
http://sccaforums.com/forums/341763/...ad.aspx#341763
In a nutshell...
Right now, there is no set/mandated timeframe that the SEB has to wait before they send items up to the BOD.
Fastracks are published online around the 20th to the 23rd of the month before the month they become effective.
In there are items that get sent out out for member comment.
In a recent case, the Sept FasTrack was published on the 20th of Aug. asking for feedback on the STS to ST and STS2 to STS class name changes.
The SEB met by conference call on Aug 27th and pushed a rule change through to the BOD, 4 days before the effective date of the FasTrack, and leaving only 1 week for those that get the e-mail notification to write in on the rule change, never mind those that still get the FasTrack mailed to them. (Log in to your SCCA.com account and the options are at the bottom.)
Recently I did an informal poll on SCCAForums.com and NASIOC and over 1/2 of the people that responded, voted that they take over 1 week to respond.
What does this mean? Certain rules changes are getting made in too short of a time frame.
So please, write a letter within 3 days to seb@scca.com asking for the SEB to either a) put a date when they need/expect answers by with the 'out for member comment' notice or b) make it that nothing gets sent up that was just put out for member comment in the previous months FasTrack. Get your letters logged because I think my one letter is not going to change anything.
--kC
Jan 23, 2009, 01:55 PM
#3
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: CT
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rules are being changed without proper review. SCCA is such a large group, that no rule should be changed without full consultation and review. You mean to tell me the BOD was able to review both STS2 and ST at the same time and make educated, well thought out changes in a week?
Jan 23, 2009, 04:01 PM
#4
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: on the edge of sanity
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What did they need to review about taking the ending off of the class abbreviations? they didnt want numbers in the class abbrevs. its as simple as that. why the hell would it need to be reviewed for an entire month? Id rather them spend ample time classing new cars and reclassing old cars which dominate classes.
Jan 23, 2009, 06:48 PM
#5
Evolving Member
Thread Starter
This really isn't about the class name changes. That's just an example.
It's that there's no defined, set period that the SEB has to wait for member comment to be returned, and there's no set expectation by the SEB communicated to the members on when they expect to receive the feedback they requested. If people know they only have X days, then the readers and the digerati and make it known that they expect to move on this quick.
Not only that, the FasTrack is a living document that technically not effective until the month on the cover. In this instance, the FasTrack was published online on Aug 20, and the SEB moved it up to the BOD on the 27th of Aug... for the Sept. FasTrack.
Technically, the request for member comment was on Sept 1st., yet the SEB sent it up to the BOD 4 days before Sept 1st.
Now that I've answered that... I'll tackle the class naming issues with this change, not that I care and will deal with the change the best I can.
STS to ST. ST is the category name. STX STU STS... besides the obvious issues with calling in classes at local events when cars from ST, STX STU and STS could be on the course, with the same number can cause errors in the timing truck.
And there's the obvious registration problems on the local level... Changing one class to the name of another class that existed, but also got changed to something else. There's enough problems with timing and scoring and registration... now you'll have people wanting to register in STS.. are they in the old or new STS?
All minor, but a headache none the less.
As I said... it's not about the class letter changes. It's about procedure and set expectations.
--kC
It's that there's no defined, set period that the SEB has to wait for member comment to be returned, and there's no set expectation by the SEB communicated to the members on when they expect to receive the feedback they requested. If people know they only have X days, then the readers and the digerati and make it known that they expect to move on this quick.
Not only that, the FasTrack is a living document that technically not effective until the month on the cover. In this instance, the FasTrack was published online on Aug 20, and the SEB moved it up to the BOD on the 27th of Aug... for the Sept. FasTrack.
Technically, the request for member comment was on Sept 1st., yet the SEB sent it up to the BOD 4 days before Sept 1st.
Now that I've answered that... I'll tackle the class naming issues with this change, not that I care and will deal with the change the best I can.
STS to ST. ST is the category name. STX STU STS... besides the obvious issues with calling in classes at local events when cars from ST, STX STU and STS could be on the course, with the same number can cause errors in the timing truck.
And there's the obvious registration problems on the local level... Changing one class to the name of another class that existed, but also got changed to something else. There's enough problems with timing and scoring and registration... now you'll have people wanting to register in STS.. are they in the old or new STS?
All minor, but a headache none the less.
As I said... it's not about the class letter changes. It's about procedure and set expectations.
--kC
Jan 24, 2009, 03:36 PM
#6
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: on the edge of sanity
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I see what you are saying, but I dont think that applys to such a rule change. re-classing of cars, I do think should be open for comment a good time, but class nomenclature changes, nah. we are already running our winter events on 09 rules, and noone had even the slightest problem with the change.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
