We have had a significant amount of discussion about
Region goals in the past few years, and one of the strongest
I believe has been the development of Nationals caliber drivers,
and maintaining (or recapturing) our place as the winningest
Region at Nationals. That has been the thrust of every
discussion I recall on "Mission Statement" and/or "Mission"
Perhaps we should discuss again at the SC if there is any
disagreement, but I am happy with this mission.
We were also faced with the Precedent of the St. Louis chapter funding
their Nationals Rookies in this way. This was the primary incitement for
this vote, I believe.
There was significant discussion of inclusion of "ALL" SFR members,
including chapters. I heard this as explicitly included in the
proposal passed. My opinion is that because of geography and the
number of competitors (and other factors ;-) SFR solo2 is split into
several chapters; however, in the rulebook, we are all listed as
SFR champions (when we win), and so encouraging entrants from
all chapters helps achieve the SFR Solo2 mission -- as above.
We voted to support entrants in the year 2000. This year's situation
monetarily (Thanks to John K.'s getting us mostly local sites this year)
allows us to do this. Next year may be completely different, and
there was no vote to make this a permanent annual award. I am not
sure I can see how a "precedent" was set. Will a year 2002 rookie
sue SFR Solo2 to get their $90.00 refund? Good luck.
Perhaps some future entrant will badmouth the Steering Committee.
Oh NOOOO! Horrors! Something must be done!!! You may notice
that badmouthing the SC and anyone else who takes action is rampant,
and human nature. We'll just have to get over it.
Jerry
Jerry Mouton mailto:jerry@moutons.org Laissez les bons temps
rouler!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Urschel" <OSP13@attglobal.net>
To: "Donald R McKenna" <donbarbmckenna@earthlink.net>
Cc: "Bay_Area_Autocross_List" <ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 8:54 PM
Subject: Re: SFR First Time Nationals entrants -- SFR will refund
yourentrance fee
> Donald R McKenna wrote:
>
> > For those who weren't at the 8-22 SC meeting, as I recall, the vote had
no
> > negative votes but included, three abstensions. Guess who one of them
was.
>
> Since you brought it up, I was. I do that a lot simply
> because I don't like the way proposals come out of
> the blue, are followed by a brief discussion, and then
> are immediately voted on. I like to think about and
> consider precedent setting action. In this case I would
> have liked to have at least considered alternatives
> that might have provided more immediate bang for
> the buck. If you're reading something else into
> abstentions, please stop.
>
> Once the precedent was set, I did vote in favor of setting
> money aside to do the same next year, as did one of the
> other two abstainers.
>
> As for the gentleman in question being divisive, I
> recommend reading his questions a little more
> carefully and not reading so much into them. It
> was a financial responsibility/monetary question
> which I am a bit sensitive to right now as I am
> involved in trying to close a budget gap about
> 200 times larger than the site fund.
>
> We voted for the first good idea that came along
> because we currently have a considerable surplus.
> What about previous ideas we've tabled because we
> weren't sure we would be able to afford them? How
> about a discussion of what our objectives are and
> how best to attain them?
>
> BTW, who decided the members of the Chapters
> qualify? I'm not opposed to it, but I remember no
> committee discussion of the point. And maybe we
> should have discussed it with the Chapter boards first?
> Does 100 pounds ring a bell?
>
> Rich Urschel
>
> Ps. Could we have a little less public character
> impugnment and a little more discussion, please?
>
>
>
|