Author: Sam & Greg Scharnberg <samandgreg@netins.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:41:46 -0600
Dave's correct. That is the primary reason given by regions for not wanting annual tech. (Although they don't word it in quite the same way) 3.3.3.A 3) "The SCCA member presenting the vehicle for ins
Well, given that my original question quoted that section as well, it didn't seem to answer it, at least for me. Let me make it more clear... Is a printed copy of the rules from the website good eno
Author: Sam & Greg Scharnberg <samandgreg@netins.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 09:15:49 -0600
I apologize. I had forgotten that you quoted this, and it never occurred to me that this was anything but a requirement for the paper book. Take care. Greg
I can't see that anything other than the actual printed rulebook would be acceptable and I'm confident that New England Region will take that stance when we continue annual tech in 2005. Chris New En
Yeah, I'll do this... Hey, it was one of the first questions on our local autox board that came up when someone saw that the '05 rules were going to be online. FWIW, I have no problem whatsoever wit
It's simple. Really, it is. If there is no actual requirement in the current rules for each Solo2 participant to have in their possession a current Rule book, as is often written into an event's Supp
This sounds like quite a rigorous expectation just for regional competitions. Some things to consider: 1) Not all participants of SCCA regional competitions are SCCA members. In fact, in TX my estim
Hey, this ain't go-karts down at the local putt-putt mini-golf range or doing donuts in an empty church parking lot with nobody else around. We play a semi-dangerous game here and we need rules to pr
Dear Dr. Draconian, :-) This is a classic case of what works in one area may not work in another. While you may not have heard of any issues where requiring SCCA membership ended up hurting attendanc
Indeed. Am I the only one that thinks divisionals are silly? They're solely run by the local region, which is a _huge_ burden compared to a tour where the national staff helps or a regional where yo
-- Original Message -- == A region's tax status is another prefectly good reason for requiring all participants to be members. Something about too much of the club's income percentage coming from non
You know, I've heard of that before, and I know some SCCA regions and marque club regions worry about it. But does anyone know of *any* club that was ever successfully hit by the IRS on this? --Andy
Am I the only one that thinks divisionals are silly? They're solely run by the local region, which is a _huge_ burden compared to a tour where the national staff helps or a regional where you don't
You know, I've heard of that before, and I know some SCCA regions and marque club regions worry about it. But does anyone know of *any* club that was ever successfully hit by the IRS on this? --Andy
Our head local bean counter said, after we were recently audited, that we were dangerously close to losing our NFP status. At least part of the "problem" was the percentage of "non-member" income bei
I think divisionals are a good thing (besides the obvious fun factor). It's good to be able to compete with people outside your region/club events and they are an ideal "first step" for locals wantin
Citation please? I have never heard this before in any other forum (and I deal with a number of not-for-profit groups.) Not to mention that your comment is absurd on its face; are charities going to
Citation please? I have never heard this before in any other forum (and I deal with a number of not-for-profit groups.) Not to mention that your comment is absurd on its face; are charities going to
Settle down, take another toke off the peace pipe. Go back a few posts and read Dave Whitworth's response about the St. Louis region's tax audit woes. That is real and they're right down the road fro