Craig,
Hmmm... I guess my definition of "elitist" is different.
It's available to anyone who wants to go to Nationals,
many of whom in the past have had to really stretch
to go. It's not just the well heeled who go to
Nationals. Would a swimming club that gave
assistance to its members who qualified for the
Olympics be elitist? Not in my book.
Jerry
Jerry Mouton mailto:jerry@moutons.org Laissez les bons temps
rouler!
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Boyle" <craig_boyle@yahoo.com>
To: "Jerry Mouton" <jerry@moutons.org>; "Bay_Area_Autocross_List"
<ba-autox@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 11:59 AM
Subject: Re: SFR First Time Nationals entrants -- SFR will refund
yourentrance fee
> Far be it from me (as a Nats first timer) to turn down
> $90, but my first reaction is that this is one of
> those "elitist" things that favors what will always be
> a small minority in the club.
>
> The sentiment's right, however.
>
> Craig
>
> --- Jerry Mouton <jerry@moutons.org> wrote:
> > 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?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> =====
> Craig Boyle
>
> 95 Mazda Miata R BS 614
> 99 BMW 323i Sport GS ?
> 00 Ford Focus ZX3 HS 5
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Free email you can access from anywhere!
> http://mail.yahoo.com/
>
|