Oh boy.
Dear Mr. Charlie Davis,
It is fact that you and I do not agree on 100% of car classing issues,
however, I would like to take this moment to thank you for your many years
of service to the SCAC and the SCCA Solo 2 program in the face of opinions
like this. It is very hard to volunteer personal time to an organization
that you love only to learn that there are 'conspiracy theories' floating
around out there.
Dear Mr. Mark Sipe,
I feel I know you better than most on Team.Net having actually conversed
with you without your keyboard. I thank you for the first sentence of your
Post, almost a disclaimer to the second half. I will volunteer my opinion
to anyone who wants to know about any decision *I* made regarding a vote.
It is not my place to volunteer anyone else's position on any issue.
Dear Team.Net,
Why do you need to know who voted how? On a 7 member committee, if 4 vote
one way, majority rules. And for the 1000th time, the SEB makes the
decisions. The SCAC only recommends. Knowing who voted how is useless
information anyway. There have been times when I was leaning one way on a
recommendation only to go the opposite was after a very professional
debate. Just knowing where someone ended up isn't half as valuable a
knowing how they got there.
That is the major problem here. People get something in there heads and
without knowing the process or all the facts, they stand firm behind there
opinion, without merit. For the record, if the SCAC has a vote on a
certain type of car that is currently owned or being raced by a board
member, they abstain from that vote. Of course they get to voice their
opinion, most of the time it's that opinion that hold the most validity -
read: EXPERIENCE.
The group that the SEB puts into these positions (SPAG, SCAC, etc.) are
picked for their knowledge, integrity and ability to be impartial. To say
that any of us have a hidden agenda is very upsetting. Let's take the
S2000 thread for example: I saw some differing views on the subject and
wanted to facilitate some of the thinking that the SCAC does when classing
a car. Thinking along these lines is rarely addressed. Usually it's just
"Too heavy and no torque".
I have no problem making my vote on EVERY issue public after the
recommendation hits FasTrack. Just ask me. Heck, I might even tell you
why I think a certain way if I don't feel you have a hidden agenda!
***The opinions expressed above do not NECESSARILY represent the
opinions of the NER or the SCAC.***
Andy Bettencourt
Solo II Stock Class Advisory Committee
Chief Operating Steward, NER
1995 Mazda RX7 R2 - Super Stock
1966 Sunbeam Tiger MK 1A
Uh-oh, now you went and let the Genie out of the bottle! :-)
First, let me say that a lot of our upstanding peers have served us
extremely
well by volunteering their limited time on these Boards; putting their
personal interests aside to make ethically sound decisions that are in the
best spirit of the membership at whole. Unfortunately, there have been,
are,
and will be a few (hopefully very few) that make a decision(s) that serves
their own personal agenda; whether it be class-oriented, tire contract-
oriented, etc. Maybe they don't get to directly participate in the vote
due
to self-conflict, but they do get to politic a viewpoint and try to gain
support for their own selfish interests.
It may seem that the current "closed-door" policy promotes this rare type
of
situation. However, even if you were to make the meeting notes open to
all,
we still can't control what people say or argue for/against unofficially
behind the scenes. Still, I'm not sure that we shouldn't at least make the
voting positions of each member public record. I'm not saying we should,
only
that maybe we need to consider it. Is there any reason why we shouldn't
know
"for a fact" what position the people who represent our areas are taking on
certain issues.
Mark Sipe
|