Der Gasser- Letter to Editor

[dmano]

George3 wrote:

You're not even an instructor.

I can't instruct I get car sick

I would love to instruct but too many bell rings to my head took care of that, 8 concusions to date and now I get car sick.

That is why I tech cars. I give up my day off to help the club tech on Sat. and also help out tech in the mornings at the track.

Along with keeping Barry's car running. Full time job

[emayer]

larrybard wrote:

Don't know if any of you have read the most recently distributed (today) President's Report, but as I read it, the newly adopted written policy now includes something on discounts received by DE instructors (as well as by the "Executive team") -- though it's not clear to me, from the report, whether these discounts were in place already ("historical practices") that are for the first time being documented in a policy, or if they're new changes.

I just received the document and there is plenty within it to digest- (how's that for putting it delicately!) .

Reading the section referred to above, I gather that existing practices have now been formalized and documented. I didn't get the sense that new changes were made, but pending publication of the policy, perhaps some of the Exec committee members can speak to it here.

[ADCooperS]

99.9% of what is in the policy is what was already in place.  The executive discounts and instructor discounts are definitely nothing new, as is anything else in the document.  We just wanted to formalize our policy so all members would be aware of it and so that there would be a level of transparency. 

[larrybard]

ADCooperS wrote:

99.9% of what is in the policy is what was already in place. The executive discounts and instructor discounts are definitely nothing new, as is anything else in the document. We just wanted to formalize our policy so all members would be aware of it and so that there would be a level of transparency.

Well then perhaps I'm the only member participating in this thread who mistakenly assumed that there were no DE entry fee discounts currently given to instructors? Did I miss anyone else's statement to that effect?

[ADCooperS]

There are other people who could probably provide more information about this, but I think there are other clubs and organizations that do not charge instructors at all, or charge instructors a very minimal amount to participate.  We have had problems this year with getting a sufficient number of instructors to sign up, so I think some were considering whether we could increase the number of instructors by reducing or eliminating the fee for instructors. 

[ccm911]

[George3]

.....

[Mike Andrews]

emayer wrote:

larrybard wrote:

Don't know if any of you have read the most recently distributed (today) President's Report, but as I read it, the newly adopted written policy now includes something on discounts received by DE instructors (as well as by the "Executive team") -- though it's not clear to me, from the report, whether these discounts were in place already ("historical practices") that are for the first time being documented in a policy, or if they're new changes.

I just received the document and there is plenty within it to digest- (how's that for putting it delicately!) .

Reading the section referred to above, I gather that existing practices have now been formalized and documented. I didn't get the sense that new changes were made, but pending publication of the policy, perhaps some of the Exec committee members can speak to it here.

Eric,



You're always the diplomat.



The original practice was, elected Exec members run at the discounted instructor rate... that had morphed into all Exec's (elected and appointed) receiving the discount as well as the discount being passed on to spouses. The exec voted on the morphed version.







Now a word on a "certain" other part of Graham's message.



[indent]
With full knowledge that I intended to run for another term, the nominating committee met (without me) to create their recommended “slate�? of nominees. Albeit within the letter of the Bylaws, this quorum of three decided on their own to[/b] exclude several willing incumbents from their slate. The current Board had NO say in the selection process and I was not asked if I approved.



This may be the first time in the history of the Club that a current President who intended to run for re-election was not recommended by the nominating committee. I was quite taken back, and I am concerned that the financial investigation that I undertook may have been a factor[/b]. Some members of our Club have expressed the view that these unfortunate matters would have better been addressed without publicity to the membership in general.
[/indent]



The first part of this message that I'd like to talk about is the "exclude several willing incumbents from their slate". I have been for months saying (since Graham, months earlier, said in passing that he was not having fun and didn't want to do this anymore) I was interested in running for President and Tom knew of my intentions and confirmed my intentions at the Glen event. I can only surmise that as a past president he understood the rules in place and was getting a feel for the upcoming task of putting a slate together. At the following Exec meeting Graham submitted his slate to be printed in Der Gasser and at that time was informed that the other members of the nominating committee would be putting my name on the slate instead of his (yeah, he may have been taken aback, but just earlier that day there were rumors that Graham was not running). I believe that was the only change the committee wanted to make to the slate. The autocross chair (Steve) questioned my credentials and said he would not serve if I were elected, the treasurer and secretary both said they would not run as did Ian Curtis (running for autocross). The decision to hold Der Gasser for a few days was made to allow time to create the slate. I talked with Allison at the end of the Exec meeting and asked her to reconsider running. She said she’d think about and get back to Tom. I talked with Ian as well and left messages for Chris (who was running for Vice President). Both Ian and Allison elected not to run and notified Tom the following day. I played phone tag with Chris for a few days and after he talked with Tom and stated he would stay on board if Allison was staying and we could change the duties of Vice President. When we finally did talk I informed him that Allison would not be running, although I think we have an incredible candidate for treasurer, and I couldn’t change the definition of Vice President and he suggested that perhaps it wasn’t a good fit for him. So, while Graham would have you believe the nominating committee excluded incumbents from the slate, the fact is the incumbents said they would not serve.



Another word on one of your statements.... "This slate included several incumbent Board members (including your current President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and AutoX Chair)". I know it's splitting hairs but Joe (vice president) was not on your slate as he wanted to run for another position on the board. Chris (secretary) was not running in his old position and as such he was not an incumbent and neither was Steve (autocross). Allison was the only, other than you, incumbent on the slate. I'm not discounting their efforts as I know they (and you) have busted their tails this year. I'm just stating the facts as I know them.





Graham, and I’m assuming you are reading this thread, would you be so kind as to explain your “I was concerned….. been a factor “ comment.

[Darren]

FWIW I think you guys need to figure out how to bridge the gap here.  Obviously we have many qualified people who want to help out, who have helped out, and who have shown that they are perfectly qualified to help out.

On both sides I see a clear willingness to walk away if the election doesn't go the right way.  I don't want to lose any of the members of either slate from the club, and I hope you all can look past the election.  We have people who have been around a long time supporting the club and we have newer people who are just as eager to help.  Do you know how many times I've heard "if x person is elected to y position then z person is quitting the club?"

The point in the end is we're all (-1) doing what we think is best for the club and we need to keep it in that context.

There was one person who it seems wasn't doing the best for the club, who is now excluded from the club, but that was a unique situation.  We need to look forward and not worry too much or speculate on the past.  The new policies enacted increase transparency and formalize ambiguity.

I would very much like to hear from both Mike and Graham on the current issues.  I don't know the best format for that but probably the forum is not the answer.  On the other hand I understand that Graham had the ability to send the email that went out and Mike doesn't have an equal way to respond.

Maybe statements and q/a at the next meeting? I don't know.  I don't normally come to meetings but I'll come for that.  But I'd like to suggest that we don't do it here.

[Phokaioglaukos]

larrybard wrote:

it's not clear to me, from the report, whether these discounts were in place already ("historical practices") that are for the first time being documented in a policy, or if they're new changes.

I think I can answer this question now. The Instructor and Board discounts in the policy have existed in that form for a good long time. Some other discounts that had been in place were terminated by the Board last Sunday. This is the first time the policy on discounts has been put in writing, and soon it will be on the web. Our Webmaster has several things to post.

Myles and Speed Council were instrumental in getting this done.