CRB Letter; Improving communication to membership

[Jnovak]

Allowing people to vote on every minor issue, is basically what we have now, so refining that process just continues to maintain the status quo and ensure that there will be no meaningful growth. Every decision will continue to conclude with decisions that protect the existing car owners, rather than attract people, cars, and outlooks that will keep that class vital or move it forward.

The best way to help your class, and club racing in general. is to speed up the decline of SCCA by refusing to write letters, and refusing to participate on committees and boards. Vote with your wallet, by supporting the few SCCA events that provide value, and choosing other non-SCCA events that provide value. The decline of SCCA club racing has been brutal over the past few decades, but like sports teams of this century, the best and quickest way to rebuild, is to intentionally "tank", bottom out, and then rebuild from the bottom up.

Greg, I am curious, are you an SCCA member?

[problemchild]

Greg, I am curious, are you an SCCA member?

I am a very proud member of Glen Region SCCA and have also been an OVR member at times.

It breaks my heart to see the state of the club now. I want it to improve, or evolve into modern functioning entities, that will best serve club racers. I expect club racing will be best served by privately run groups who can actually get things done. In order for that to happen, we need to blow up the monopolistic club as it exists and create the opportunity created by an open marketplace. There is no future running a business based on a mid 20th century club model designed to maintain the status quo for what are now mostly 60-70 year old men racing occasionally with cars 3-5 decades old. Currently, other privately run business, are targeting that demographic with sound modern business models. SCCA, as it exists, cannot compete in the world today. It tries to to too much and does nothing well. The sooner we accept that, blow it up, and evolve, the better club racing can be. It is our only hope!

[E1pix]

I respect that, but that theory ignores profit as first priority in a corporate-only environment.

As said, I'm not racing -- yet. But that may soon change, though a prior post here claims only one hopeful in a thousand actually goes racing.

So my interest is in being able to run SCCA soon, or something beyond karts, as pondered since 1963. With that, perhaps my opinions, new member aside, may have value here.

Seeing nearly 1,000 entries at the 2017 Runoffs at Indy told a few stories: one being cars are out there; two knowing it was much about being at IMS from dreams of racing there; three being the sad turnout at Sears this year.

So, with proximity factors aside, where did they all go? In the Olden Days of the '70s to '90s, venue locations meant nothing. One had to EARN going to the Runoffs, and racers weren't about to miss it for a few extra hundies in gas to get there.

The total entries now aren't so much down, but with a vastly-increased population and a ton more one-percenters, it's clear there's a lot wrong that needs fixing. Step One is less classes, as I think is realized by most or all here. And once a class is successfully-growing, don't screw it up. The Club is begging for more continuity.

[Jnovak]

I am a very proud member of Glen Region SCCA and have also been an OVR member at times.

It breaks my heart to see the state of the club now. I want it to improve, or evolve into modern functioning entities, that will best serve club racers. I expect club racing will be best served by privately run groups who can actually get things done. In order for that to happen, we need to blow up the monopolistic club as it exists and create the opportunity created by an open marketplace. There is no future running a business based on a mid 20th century club model designed to maintain the status quo for what are now mostly 60-70 year old men racing occasionally with cars 3-5 decades old. Currently, other privately run business, are targeting that demographic with sound modern business models. SCCA, as it exists, cannot compete in the world today. It tries to to too much and does nothing well. The sooner we accept that, blow it up, and evolve, the better club racing can be. It is our only hope!

thanks Greg!

[Jnovak]

I think that we need about 20 classes at the Max. Let the strong (entries vs cost to compete survive)

here is my sorta list, in no particulr order. This is a wild ass guess to get started

2 sports racer classes like
P1 and P2

Spec racer as in srf3

Open wheel as in

FV
FE2
FF 1600
Something with wings and somthing fast but lower cost total 5 classes max. I am a fan of F5 but it has serious issues imo. Maybe a stock engined spec class??

Production based spec classes. Basically classes very supported by a manufacturer say 2-3 maximum of 3 classes
2. Mazda Miata
2. ??
3. ??

Production based classes WITH allowed mods.

Perhaps a total numer of 20 majors classes.

Now this post is simply a thought starter and is not intended as anything else!

I will start another forum on this subject.

[John Nesbitt]

I think that we need about 20 classes at the Max. Let the strong (entries vs cost to compete survive)

here is my sorta list, in no particulr order. This is a wild ass guess to get started

2 sports racer classes like
P1 and P2

Spec racer as in srf3

Open wheel as in

FV
FE2
FF 1600
Something with wings and somthing fast but lower cost total 5 classes max. I am a fan of F5 but it has serious issues imo. Maybe a stock engined spec class??

Production based spec classes. Basically classes very supported by a manufacturer say 2-3 maximum of 3 classes
2. Mazda Miata
2. ??
3. ??

Production based classes WITH allowed mods.

Perhaps a total number of 20 majors classes.

Now this post is simply a thought starter and is not intended as anything else!

I will start another forum on this subject.

If you look at 2018 Runoffs entries, open wheel and sports racers (excluding SRF, which is out of our scope), comprised almost exactly a third of entries.

If we envision a limit of 20 classes, more than 6-7 OW and SR classes would be a hard sell.

So: FV, FF, FE and ?

If a limit of 20 races, then much combining of classes, but still 6-7 race groups.

[reidhazelton]

No reference to this letter in the February Fastrack.

So much for that.

[John Nesbitt]

No reference to this letter in the February Fastrack.

So much for that.

Remember that letters do not appear in Fastrack until the CRB (and the relevant advisory committee) have fully considered it.

Depending on when you submitted the letter, it may have arrived early in a workflow cycle.

And, they are very likely considering it very carefully.

[Todd Butler]

Remember that letters do not appear in Fastrack until the CRB (and the relevant advisory committee) have fully considered it.

Depending on when you submitted the letter, it may have arrived early in a workflow cycle.

And, they are very likely considering it very carefully.

As John said, there's a Process Appropriate Advisory Committee has to look at it first and make their recommendation, then pass it up to CRB for action. CRB then takes action and forwards on to BoD. Only after BoD deals with the letter is it published in Fastrack.
Many of the letter around process, communication, etc are really not something an Advisory Committee or CRB can unilaterally take action on (even assuming BoD approval). These take some degree of coordination or agreed action from National office Staff so these take longer than a simple rule change to add weight or restrictor or tire size.

Back to the original subject of transparency.....

This is an extract of a letter that I sent directly to Mike Cobb, SCCA President back in May 2018. No reply and not much action. You may or may not necessarily agree with my statement on “progress”, but FWIW:

Mr Cobb:

………This is about SCCA communications and transparency.

SCCA is doing a much better job communicating with members now via the web, directed e-mail and social media. One area we consistently lack is providing background information for many (all) of our major announcements or program changes. When I was BoD Secretary (6 years) I tried to add a few sentences around why a decision or vote was made in the BoD minutes. Even that is gone now and the minutes are quite sparse.

If you scan the various Internet forums, while there are some adults in the room on most all of them, there are a lot of conspiracy theorists, the Black Helicopter crowd where every SCCA decision is a backroom, sweetheart deal, deliberately trying to screw them or their class. From the perspective of the conspiracy folks, and even the rational membership at large, all of these decisions or announcements seem to “just happen overnight”. While many BoD members, CRB and sometimes even Staff try to provide comment and corrections on these forums at times, that input and information is completely informal and unofficial. What’s missing is a 1-2 page background paper that could be linked to the announcement explaining some of the background, the decisions, rationale, and importantly, the timeline involved in developing this new direction. While the conspiracy folks will still see conspiracies, the reasonable folks will at least understand why we came to that decision even if they don’t agree with it.

Some will argue that this is extra work but I’d argue that that working groups proposing the new direction/program/policy develop the 1-2 page “backgrounder” and are responsible for presenting it with BoD or Staff when approving the new direction/program/policy. Marketing and Communication can review the backgrounder for accuracy, sensitive information, and to keep us out of legal trouble before it’s posted to the SCCA website and linked to the press announcement. I firmly believe that this kind of background information would greatly add to our communications strategy and the perception of more transparency for major decisions the Club makes.

[reidhazelton]

Mr Cobb:

………This is about SCCA communications and transparency.

SCCA is doing a much better job communicating with members now via the web, directed e-mail and social media. One area we consistently lack is providing background information for many (all) of our major announcements or program changes. When I was BoD Secretary (6 years) I tried to add a few sentences around why a decision or vote was made in the BoD minutes. Even that is gone now and the minutes are quite sparse.

If you scan the various Internet forums, while there are some adults in the room on most all of them, there are a lot of conspiracy theorists, the Black Helicopter crowd where every SCCA decision is a backroom, sweetheart deal, deliberately trying to screw them or their class. From the perspective of the conspiracy folks, and even the rational membership at large, all of these decisions or announcements seem to “just happen overnight”. While many BoD members, CRB and sometimes even Staff try to provide comment and corrections on these forums at times, that input and information is completely informal and unofficial. What’s missing is a 1-2 page background paper that could be linked to the announcement explaining some of the background, the decisions, rationale, and importantly, the timeline involved in developing this new direction. While the conspiracy folks will still see conspiracies, the reasonable folks will at least understand why we came to that decision even if they don’t agree with it.

Some will argue that this is extra work but I’d argue that that working groups proposing the new direction/program/policy develop the 1-2 page “backgrounder” and are responsible for presenting it with BoD or Staff when approving the new direction/program/policy. Marketing and Communication can review the backgrounder for accuracy, sensitive information, and to keep us out of legal trouble before it’s posted to the SCCA website and linked to the press announcement. I firmly believe that this kind of background information would greatly add to our communications strategy and the perception of more transparency for major decisions the Club makes.

It's like we were separated at birth.

[mmi16]

Remember that letters do not appear in Fastrack until the CRB (and the relevant advisory committee) have fully considered it.

Depending on when you submitted the letter, it may have arrived early in a workflow cycle.

And, they are very likely considering it very carefully.

Observation from my experiences - it takes in the neighborhood of 3 months after the letter is submitted to get the 'thank you for your interest'. notation in FasTrack.

[John Nesbitt]

Observation from my experiences - it takes in the neighborhood of 3 months after the letter is submitted to get the 'thank you for your interest'. notation in FasTrack.

Three months is about the minimum. I have waited for over a year on one occasion. As Todd points out, a lot depends on the complexity and impact of the request.

[Purple Frog]

Back in the 70's the runoffs had 21 race groups.
7 races per day for three days.

Just saying.

OBTW I liked what Todd wrote.

I spent a few years on the FSRAC. There were times we would debate a member's letter for an hour or more. We would make a decision and send it on to the CRB. Then there would be a "one liner" rejection note in Fastrack. Kind of frustrating. Especially since we were not allowed to go out on our own and try to explain the reasoning for the decision... which usually was well thought out.