Letter to SCCA President

[Speed Sport Engineering]

Hello,

For those who don't know me, I'm a long time (but young!) FV driver who had a brief stint in FF2000's in the late 90's. I have become more and more frustrated with several things occuring in SCCA, and the growing sense that member opinions don't count for much. I have decided to write a letter address a few of my biggest complaints. Below is a copy of what I am mailing in. I understand not everyone may agree, but my hope is I will be supported in this.

My letter:

Attn: Jim Julow

As a 14-year member of the SCCA, I am writing in regards to three events that have occurred over the past year. I would like to address each event separately, and a response for each issue would be greatly appreciated. Each of these illustrates SCCA’s disregard for current member’s desires, and in my opinion shows how the current Board of Directors is not acting in our best interest

1)Addition of five new national classes. I recall during the lunch time competition board meetings at each of the past several Runoffs drivers being very outspoken and indicating the strong desire and need to eliminate classes. It was, and still is a very strong and almost unanimous opinion that there are too many classes competing on a national race weekend. So how was it in our best interest, if the majority of drivers want fewer classes, to have five more added? Why were these classes allowed to go directly to national status before a regional trial period? Many drivers are disappointed enough with this change to start looking for alternative racing organizations. When I sought answers from stewards during race weekends the common response was they were just as unhappy about it as the drivers

2) Changes to the configuration of Heartland Park Topeka. While I understand drivers were surveyed after the runoffs for opinions on the track, I don’t think it was a surprise to anyone that it was not well liked. But where was is determined the negative responses to the survey were due to specific corners and not the general feeling Heartland Park will never be as nice as Mid-Ohio or Road Atlanta? Pay attention to the Internet forums – there has been an overwhelmingly negative attitude toward the proposed changes. If SCCA is acting in our interest, how about opening up to another vote as to whether we want the proposed changes? I’m willing to bet the answer would be no.

3) The split of Central Division. Most people in the old Central Division never even were aware this was proposed. How could such a major change occur without member input? I have yet to find a single person – driver, steward, worker, ect., that feels this was a good decision. Judging by the car counts of the first few Great Lakes Division nationals, I believe we are all right in questioning this.

These three issues are all very serious and important. As a driver, I feel helpless and confused as to how each of them were approved. After talking with fellow racers in the paddock, this feeling is shared by all. I am eager to hear a response

Michael Varacins
Member No. 223366

[Joefisherff]

I think you should send it in to Sportscar too to be published as a letter to the editor.

[Keith Carter]

I'm not sure how they will respond, but #2 is the doing of the track owner. I don't know if the SCCA had much in the decision making of the layout change. Ray Irwin would be the guy to talk to.

As for the division split, for me it may not have been ideal since I'm close to the southernmost part of the lake so the travel isn't too bad to hit races in Michigan and Ohio. It sure makes the fight to make it to the Runoffs easier though. The old CenDiv config had an extremely stout FC field. But you must understand that those in Minnesota are also CenDiv and to haul from there to get to a race at Grattan (MI) would almost be as long as driving to Topeka for a race. Doesn't really seem fair, but then what in life is?

[Speed Sport Engineering]

We spoke to Ray Irwin at the first national at Blackhawk. He said he doesn't want to make the changes and doesn't feel the need to. But SCCA has asked him to do it.

[Greg Mercurio]

Michael: You should also copy the BOD on this letter. You will likely get more response from the Board than from the CEO.

[M.Sauce]

I will be happy to tell you the answers to your questions. Call me at 817-860-1985.
Mike Sauce

[Dennis McCarthy]

Mike,

Instead of regular members having to call up a BOD member to get an question answered, how about an official forum where a member could ask a question, as long as they have a member# and get an answer that is available to all? The dissemination of information as to the how and why decisions are made is terrible.

On that same note, is there any good reason given modern cheap internet technology why the BOD meetings can't be webcast (excluding executive sessions) so all of regular members can see how and why decisions are made?? It would go an awful long way towards promoting the transparency this BOD promised the membership.

NER #249921

[Rennie Clayton]

Mike,

As you know, my father Stan is on the CRB, I believe you two converse rather frequently.

I can get quick answers to these kinds of questions, and even I feel that the transparency and visibility of process and communication with the club is atrocious. Like private answers to publicly posed questions.

Perhaps making yourself available for questions like this is an improvement over nothing at all, but it does nothing to assuage the general feeling among the membership that "the Club" is very secretive in the way it conducts business. It's not that we don't trust you to give us the same answer as you'd give the next guy - we just want to know that we have the same answer as the next guy.


Cheers,
Rennie

[M.Sauce]

I would welcome an open forum to answer quesions from members.I will be glad in the interim to answer any and all questions.Just call me 817-860-1985

[dc]

If it would help, we could create an OPEN forum here for SCCA BOD and other officials to answer direct questions and concerns from ApexSpeed members.


Just say the word, and we'll install it immediately.

[S Lathrop]

If it would help, we could create an OPEN forum here for SCCA BOD and other officials to answer direct questions and concerns from ApexSpeed members.


Just say the word, and we'll install it immediately.

I think this idea has merrit. How do you keep it productive and not have it turn into a rant?

In the final analysis, all the prestiege and power of SCCA comes from the Club racing competitor and the money he spends. Every one of those drivers probably has his own gripe list. The problem for SCCA comes when the cost of racing exceeds the pleasure and the drivers go else where to race or retire to persue other interests.

It seems to me that over the years the National racing program has degenerated form a time when one had to work very hard to qualify to be one of 21 cars invited to run for the national championship. That championsip had real value to the winner. Today you can qualify by meeting the participation requirements in most divisions. And the championship has little more value than adding your name to a list of those who went before.


As long as the club views the Run offs as a cash cow and wants 500 car entries, the problems will continue to exist and get worse.

An example of the problem is the Greats Lake division where there were only 3 FCs and the pro F2000 has 45 entries for a race at the Glen. All those pro cars are also SCCA club cars. Very few will run any SCCA club races.

The Formula Ford guys are complaining about entries. How many of the FF racers have bought Vintage cars and only race at Vintage events? May be FF and FC are really much larger classes than the numbers show.

When I was running FSV, I ran both club and pro races that were close to my division (the old Central). It was improtant for a young driver to have both the SCCA National championship and the Pro Super Vee championship on their resume. I got a lot of satisifaction racing against the future pro drivers. We had good fields at both club and pro races. F2000 is the current version of FSV. In those days you could run the 2 North American Grand Prix weekends and the Run offs at Road Atlanta. I also would run USAC FSV races. But the point is that SCCA Club Racing was the foundation of my racing program.

Is this type of racing just past history or is it a reasonable goal for the future? Or are those days gone and soon will be the memories of those who raced then.

[Charles Warner]

Steve makes a very good point regarding a dedicated forum turning into a BOD bashing avenue. What some may say now is "we want answers as to why this or that was done." What will happen when the reasons are given is that many offended members will begin challenging the decisions publically and (if history repeats) often in an abusive or abrasive manner. The internet is a great venue for intellectual anarchy as we have seen in the discussions of some of the more controversial issues of our sport.

Also there is the aspect that some questions will be avoided (possibly for good reasons) which will raise the subject of black ops and helicopters in the night. I'm not sure I see a need for a dedicated forum, other than a specific venue the BOD can go to directly without having to search through all the various fora. I agree a method of publically answering a member's question would go a long way. The same venue could be used to officially solicit comments regarding proposed rule changes.

[Dennis McCarthy]

I think we could all live with the present moderators, they've done a pretty good job so far!

[M.Sauce]

I would want to have ground rules and a moderator such as this site has.We could make it as productive as it was civil.Remember we are all advocates of the same sport. Progress without mutual respect and sensitivity would be difficult to achieve.

[dc]

A dedicated forum would work very well. First, because of the type of community that we have created here over the last 7-odd years. We are VERY proud of the level of communication, camaraderie, civility and the overall family atmosphere here. One only needs to read the Purple Frog at the RunOffs threads to understand what this community means to US as well as the racers, themselves.

We would make sure that all existing moderators and admins were hyper sensitive of the threads and their content in this particular forum, and will absolutely not let it turn into a playground for shouting matches. All of us on this forum are very passionate about this sport, and have strong feelings about the way it can be run to prosper and progress.

The fact that we have SCCA officials and BOD members not only on this forum who are not only very active, but willing to field questions directly out in the open on this board is an opportunity I don't think we should pass up.



I think we'll set this up tonight, and proceed to look for a new Moderator specifically for this forum, who is not affiliated with SCCA, who will look out for the best interests of everyone on the forum.

[Speed Sport Engineering]

While I'm glad to see this post has helped create some dialog between drivers and a board member, no one has commented on the subject in my letter. I understand the division split and class additions are hard to change now, but how about the changes to HPT? My understanding is the changes have not been made, and Ray does not want to do it. Does anyone else here feel that same way, and should we try to get these changes stopped?

[GT1Vette]

I believe that you'd find an overwhelming majority of "big car" drivers would vote in favor of the changes (or vote that they're not enough). The track in it's current configuration is little more than a go-kart track. But then I can't stand Barber Motorsports Park either.

Butch Kummer