Moderator: Mike Simanyi

Craig Naylor
Posts: 1948
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 80
Location: Long Beach

I think it's pretty clear I'm not a fan of the proposal... But in the spirit of improving the proposal if this become the chosen path...

Comments are based upon the section as numbered in Stephens post.

1.) 30 days to disperse club funds.
- I'm not aware of any club that has actually filled for Non Profit status, based upon the accumulated funds the last time I saw a treasures report.
- NP status can not be acquired in 30 days.
- This would require clubs to either organize as a for-profit organization, or sacrifice?? their funds?

2b.) I don't see a practical purpose in 2b. Your either meet the definition of 2a or you don't.

3.) "one-half hosted"... Lets not create new words. We have always referred to this a co-hosting... unless were concerned about more than 2 clubs "co-hosting", which can be controlled when calendaring.
3a) Would this mean a club rep who steps down, their alt would not be the 1st alt for the position, but rather an election?
3a) Since 3.) specifically stated it applies to year one only, and 3b states that a rep replacement would be by vote, but the voting rules do not come into effect until rule 4). But rule 4 specifically states it applies following the "initial year". What rules apply to the 3a vote? Will the election be by that respective clubs members, full membership, or an empty position until the following year when rules allow for an actual vote by the membership. The proposal leaves this ambiguous.

4) Are all directors corporate directors of the non-profit, or or non-corporate director (similar to existing club reps).
4)a. & 4)c. are inconsistent with each other. "4)a." defines a variable number of directors, "4)c." defines a fixed number of directors.
4)c. flows in to 4)d.
Nothing in section 4 defines our corporate officer makeup, or how President, Treasurer, Secretary for state filings are determined (membership vote during election, or board vote once impaneled).

3)/4) defines a rollover of title (club rep to director), 4 defines how many directors are elected each year, nothing defines terms for the roll-over positions or how long they will serve.
3)/4). Neither addresses our current Treasure /Secretary positions. Will the people currently serving those positions be dissolved, and assumed by one of the club rep/directors rolling over?

5)a text before comma needs cleaned up.
5a) Since we don't define a "director position" (see comment in 4c. above)... how can one be nominated for more than one "position"?

6)b. technically directors don't "elect" to fill vacancies, they appoint.
6)b. Under what conditions are vacancies appointed by the directors, or by the Chairman. This sounds like the potential for a stalemate, if the Chairman and the remaining directors are not of the same mind. Who breaks the tie if they differ? The many (directors) or the one (Chairman).
6)b. The attached bylaw changes are in conflict with 6)b. The attached bylaws only state the chairman can appoint to vacancies.

6)d. 4)c. says that the "Chairman" is the presiding officer, but 6)d. introduces the term "officers". Who are the additional "officers", how do they differ from directors. (part and parcil to another question above) If an officer is not a director, how are they voted in moving forward?

Anthony Porta
Former CSCC Overall Champion
Posts: 722
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 30
Contact:

Craig, read the second post on the thread. The by-laws are the actual integration of the ideas listed.

Sean Fenstermacher
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:56 pm
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 81

Craig Naylor wrote:I think it's pretty clear I'm not a fan of the proposal... But in the spirit of improving the proposal if this become the chosen path...

Comments are based upon the section as numbered in Stephens post.

1.) 30 days to disperse club funds.
- I'm not aware of any club that has actually filled for Non Profit status, based upon the accumulated funds the last time I saw a treasures report.
- NP status can not be acquired in 30 days.
- This would require clubs to either organize as a for-profit organization, or sacrifice?? their funds?

2b.) I don't see a practical purpose in 2b. Your either meet the definition of 2a or you don't.

3.) "one-half hosted"... Lets not create new words. We have always referred to this a co-hosting... unless were concerned about more than 2 clubs "co-hosting", which can be controlled when calendaring.
3a) Would this mean a club rep who steps down, their alt would not be the 1st alt for the position, but rather an election?
3a) Since 3.) specifically stated it applies to year one only, and 3b states that a rep replacement would be by vote, but the voting rules do not come into effect until rule 4). But rule 4 specifically states it applies following the "initial year". What rules apply to the 3a vote? Will the election be by that respective clubs members, full membership, or an empty position until the following year when rules allow for an actual vote by the membership. The proposal leaves this ambiguous.

4) Are all directors corporate directors of the non-profit, or or non-corporate director (similar to existing club reps).
4)a. & 4)c. are inconsistent with each other. "4)a." defines a variable number of directors, "4)c." defines a fixed number of directors.
4)c. flows in to 4)d.
Nothing in section 4 defines our corporate officer makeup, or how President, Treasurer, Secretary for state filings are determined (membership vote during election, or board vote once impaneled).

3)/4) defines a rollover of title (club rep to director), 4 defines how many directors are elected each year, nothing defines terms for the roll-over positions or how long they will serve.
3)/4). Neither addresses our current Treasure /Secretary positions. Will the people currently serving those positions be dissolved, and assumed by one of the club rep/directors rolling over?

5)a text before comma needs cleaned up.
5a) Since we don't define a "director position" (see comment in 4c. above)... how can one be nominated for more than one "position"?

6)b. technically directors don't "elect" to fill vacancies, they appoint.
6)b. Under what conditions are vacancies appointed by the directors, or by the Chairman. This sounds like the potential for a stalemate, if the Chairman and the remaining directors are not of the same mind. Who breaks the tie if they differ? The many (directors) or the one (Chairman).
6)b. The attached bylaw changes are in conflict with 6)b. The attached bylaws only state the chairman can appoint to vacancies.

6)d. 4)c. says that the "Chairman" is the presiding officer, but 6)d. introduces the term "officers". Who are the additional "officers", how do they differ from directors. (part and parcil to another question above) If an officer is not a director, how are they voted in moving forward?

Bill Martin
Posts: 485
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: GRA
Car#: 74

Anthony Porta wrote:80% or in the new by-laws 4 out of 5 is for expulsion of a board member. That's not something to be taken lightly and requires more than a simple majority.

To be clear...I wasn't advocating a simple majority in all things. Just that the current minimum numbers seemed ill matched to the new system.

Sean Fenstermacher
Posts: 492
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:56 pm
Club: SCNAX
Car#: 81

At this point, I hope we can direct the discussion on whether or not moving from the club model to the regional model is what we want to do.

If we do move forth with the regional model, we can then start to go over our by-laws and implementation steps in greater detail and revise accordingly to better match intended use, realistic processing lead times, and grammatical compliance needs.

Anthony's proposal has given us a great starting point for this open discussion.
Let's keep it going!

Will Kalman
Posts: 1210
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:24 am
Club: PSCC
Car#: 232

This idea has been tossed around for at least the last 15 years, around the time of the Great CalClub Message Board Wars of 2002 and a few years before I was vice-chair in 2006-2007, partially as a way to prevent the cliquishness and tribalism. I've always liked it.

One advantage that has always appealed to me is that a greater grouping of funds and abilities in one body vs several sub-bodies. CASOC has had a set of scales for many years, for example. But the larger, singular club might be able to afford something along the lines of a portable alignment rack or a tire changer/balancer in a club trailer at events. How's that for benefits to membership?

Mark DeShon
Posts: 467
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 8:57 pm
Car#: 113

Will Kalman wrote:This idea has been tossed around for at least the last 15 years, around the time of the Great CalClub Message Board Wars of 2002 and a few years before I was vice-chair in 2006-2007, partially as a way to prevent the cliquishness and tribalism. I've always liked it.

One advantage that has always appealed to me is that a greater grouping of funds and abilities in one body vs several sub-bodies. CASOC has had a set of scales for many years, for example. But the larger, singular club might be able to afford something along the lines of a portable alignment rack or a tire changer/balancer in a club trailer at events. How's that for benefits to membership?

+1 for me. I see the need for grouping regions, for example. There's a simple, geographical, pragmatic set of reasons why SCCA's solo community needs to be divided in this way. However, I don't see (and never have seen) similar reasons why we should further divide our region. I, too, was baffled by the 'club within a club' model when I first started, and I always feared that it would become cliquey and feel like high school. Well, given some of the completely unnecessary things that went on last year, my fears weren't totally without merit. Actually it felt worse than high school; more like modern politics. Us vs Them. Tear down the other group because it's not our group. Having good friends in both sides of that pointless battle, I felt pressure from both sides to... well... take sides. I didn't like it one bit, especially coming from people I cared about and I joined the most non-club I can find in protest. Keep in mind that new people experience that same pressure to 'fit a mold' and many are likely as averse to that as I am.
The important thing is that nothing changed for me. I still spend time with the people I like. I still help out when I'm able, regardless of whose event it is, and I still do the minimum when I'm feeling burnt out. The only thing different is that people know that I won't be pushed one way or another. There are hard workers and freeloaders everywhere. There are good friends and those with not-so-great attitudes everywhere, and it does us no good to have the license to lump them all together because they wear a different color shirt.
The best argument (on the face of it) that I've heard for the club model is to split the heavy lifting between events. But lets face it, we're already not doing that. It's still the same core people who rotate the key jobs amongst themselves; the ones who can and are willing to give a little more. Even historically speaking, I don't think we have ever had a time where we had an even enough distribution of club membership to run that model completely. It has usually been two, sometimes three dominant clubs carrying the rest who were under-subscribed. Craig's point about clubs requiring the membership to help out makes some sense, but leaving those requirements up to the clubs will mean that freeloaders will simply join the club that requires them to do the least. Then, when that club hosts an event, the whole region suffers.
Whatever you may think of the e-board events, I have seen a marked improvement in the consistent quality of events in my 8 years with Cal Club, and I also think it has shown in the number of jackets we've brought home from Lincoln in recent years (Rod-Knock-Fest 2017 excluded). Centralizing certain aspects (for example E-board events and the course design committee) has upped the caliber of Cal Club Solo 2 to the point where people drive long distances from neighboring regions regularly to compete in well organized events on good courses. This wasn't always the case. I remember events where hosting club members got considerably more practice runs than non-members, and non-members got considerably less than we're used to now. Seems fair since they did the work to host the event, but you wouldn't think so if you were a non-member who was doing badly needed testing before Nationals. I also remember many events where courses were sub-par (to put it nicely) because nobody from Club X had any experience designing a national-caliber course and wouldn't take any outside input.
These are just random opinions from one guy who has had a medium length tenure in SCCA with regular involvement. Bottom line for me, Cal Club is a successful (super) region because we have a good pool of talent and work ethic among our membership, but subdivided further, I think that pool gets pretty shallow. Especially when the inevitable two or three club dominance comes into play. Add to that the needless tribalism and petty bickering that inevitably arises makes us (and autocross culture as a whole) look bad to new arrivals.
This is a volunteer organization, and some passionate people will always put forth more work and effort than the masses. Of course it's not right for others to take advantage of that and 'milk the system', but that's why we have minimum work assignments. That's what we as a community have deemed a requirement for participation, and we can't vilify those who just want to take their runs, do their work assignment and go home. And as for the more involved, key positions, do we really want to start requiring those to be handled by dispassionate, unwilling 'volunteers'? Personally, I want those handled by the people who are passionate and committed enough give of themselves to make sure that important job is done right. But those people should be appreciated, and burnout is a real thing. Maybe we could have the Event Master or Region Chair give out free championship entry to the next champ event to whoever he sees step up above and beyond at the current event. Maybe we could offer 'shadowing' work assignments to people who want to learn more key positions with the requirement that they work that position at the next event. These are just ideas... Like I say, random opinions from one guy.
As for the question at hand, clubs or no clubs, I think everybody knows by now where I stand. Some arguments for holding onto the clubs hold water, but I've heard none that couldn't be addressed under a more unified structure. The argument of 'there's a lot of history in the clubs' sounds to me like a way to keep us in the past. My $.02 Jayson Woodruff Posts: 1754 Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am Club: PSCC Car#: 51 ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation c. Ballots shall be sent out to current regular members in good standing no later than seven days after the October meeting. d. At the December meeting the Chairman shall present the vote counts and announce the new presiding directors. The new officers will be installed as of January 1st. I've got a question on this. Has a vote method been determined? e.g. a member is presented with a ballot of 15 nominees and votes for... 1, 3, 6 of them? Jay W Jason Swindle Posts: 65 Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am Club: GRA Car#: 5 ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation Speaking as an avid participant who has "mostly" left the governing (and apparently) squabbling to others, I do see merit in both methods, club, and unified. I too was mildly confused by the whole "points card" / which club do you wanna join. I raced the first season with 600 #s and my SCCA card. But after that season, I saw that joining a club was more fun. There were club xmas parties, club members who had tire changers in their garage, and the friendly rivalry with other clubs. I think some of that fun has been lost of the past few years. There really isn't much in the way of picking teams anymore etc. That was somehow always fun, and when I found myself selected to be on the GRA team for the first time, it was kind of a cool feeling. So, I guess I'm in favor of keeping, and looking at potentially re-vitalizing some of the clubs. I'll put my hand up as someone who hasn't done as much as I potentially should have in that vein. But I'm willing to change that and shoulder some of that additional responsibility. I'm not sure anyone has pointed out that the clubs do often have additional benefits to the body as a whole. 1. Clubs can have a reach that extends outside of solo racing and brings in new members. 2. Clubs have a way of making newer participants feel like they have a family within the larger more nebulous region. 3. Clubs have a way of balancing each other out in a way that may not be matched by an elected board (and I can see how this would lead to squabbling). Now I realize that the new proposal wouldn't do away with the clubs, but it would make them even less important than they are now, and I think they would ultimately just die out. And after thinking about it, I don't think that would be as much fun as it has been with them. I also wanted to thank everyone else who has posted their thoughts. It has provided good info, insight, and me personally with a nice trip down memory lane. Just my 0.02 Jason Steve Ekstrand Solo Safety Steward Posts: 7367 Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am Club: CASOC Car#: 15 Location: This space left intentionally blank Contact: ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation I vote "present". Dr. Conemangler aka The Malefic One 2015 Wildcat Honda F600 Rick Brown Club Representative Posts: 4747 Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:25 am Club: PSCC Car#: 240 Location: Lake Elsinore, CA ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation Steve Ekstrand wrote:I vote "present". Yay, presents for everyone! Since light is faster than sound...many people look bright until they speak... Stephen Yeoh Posts: 466 Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am Club: CASOC Car#: 888 Contact: ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation Thank you all for your input. At this point, I'm not seeing anything that hints at us not moving forward with consolidation. There are some fine points that may need to be tweaked, but no reason not to proceed with this proposal. is that correct? Stephen Yeoh Cal Club Autocross Chair George Schilling Club Representative Posts: 5103 Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am Club: CASOC Car#: 66 Location: Lakewood, CA ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation Stephen Yeoh wrote:Thank you all for your input. At this point, I'm not seeing anything that hints at us not moving forward with consolidation. There are some fine points that may need to be tweaked, but no reason not to proceed with this proposal. is that correct? From my perspective, you would be incorrect sir. CASOC Autocross Club, 1984 Van Diemen RF-84, 1600cc Kent, Hewland Mk9, Centerline 2 pc. wheels, Hoosier R25B, SuperTrapp, Zimmer Alloclassic titanium left hip w/Metasul LDH chromium-cobalt lg dia head Craig Naylor Posts: 1948 Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am Club: SCNAX Car#: 80 Location: Long Beach ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation Stephen Yeoh wrote:Thank you all for your input. At this point, I'm not seeing anything that hints at us not moving forward with consolidation. There are some fine points that may need to be tweaked, but no reason not to proceed with this proposal. is that correct? - Seven day have passed since the post was made. - 38 total posts in the thread to date, by 17 individuals, the vast majority of those not waying in one way or the other. - We have 125-150 active members, with ~200 total members (Total guesses, I don't have access to membership rolls) I don't see the overwhelming support to make such an interpretation. In general human behavior, the silent majority is typically content with the status quote. In all reality, I'm guessing the vast majority have not read the post. Whats the rush! Lauren Kane Porta Posts: 325 Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:45 am ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation Craig Naylor wrote: Stephen Yeoh wrote:Thank you all for your input. At this point, I'm not seeing anything that hints at us not moving forward with consolidation. There are some fine points that may need to be tweaked, but no reason not to proceed with this proposal. is that correct? - Seven day have passed since the post was made. - 38 total posts in the thread to date, by 17 individuals, the vast majority of those not waying in one way or the other. - We have 125-150 active members, with ~200 total members (Total guesses, I don't have access to membership rolls) I don't see the overwhelming support to make such an interpretation. In general human behavior, the silent majority is typically content with the status quote. In all reality, I'm guessing the vast majority have not read the post. Whats the rush! Craig, the "rush" is to implement a better system for Cal Club Autocross. We want to continue to improve as an organization, not be rooted in the past. What has been done for the club worked then; it doesn't seem to be as effective now. Change is not bad. Change is good and needed in order to survive and thrive in the present. What the consolidation hopes to accomplish is taking the best from the past and moving it into the 21st Century. We reached out to the entire membership via an email last week when this thread was created, as well as posted on social media. We attempted to solicit feedback from everyone. If people choose not to respond, there is nothing we can do about it. And people not responding doesn't mean that they are content with the status quo. They may not want to get involved in politics and deal with frustrations. If there is consensus to consolidate the clubs, we want to be ready for January. We have so many ideas and ways to make events more enjoyable for members, and this is the first step. Craig Naylor Posts: 1948 Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:30 am Club: SCNAX Car#: 80 Location: Long Beach ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation Lauren Kane wrote:We reached out to the entire membership via an email last week... I received no such email. I'm aware of the thread because I frequent the forum. How many others didn't receive the email? (understood it's an unanswerable question) Before you start with the whole "spam" folder thing, I own my server... I can see everything. Lauren Kane wrote:Craig, the "rush" is to implement a better system for Cal Club Autocross. Better... you state opinion as if it is fact. Your a great writer, love your event writeups, but your bias is showing. As the saying goes, Benefits Sell. - Several posts above have either stated, or eluded to benefits of the club system. Factual or beliefs, they are perceived benefits. Lauren Kane wrote:We have so many ideas and ways to make events more enjoyable for members, and this is the first step. Maybe this is the place to start... maybe the "we"(s) can share with the non-we's, a few of the "many" ideas, that apparently CAN'T be implemented w/o the elimination of clubs? Sell the old-school types your you new & improved wheel. Don't just tell them their getting a new & improved wheel, because their old wheel sucks! Daryl Lane Posts: 73 Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2011 7:39 am Club: PSCC Car#: 32 Location: Corona Ca. ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation I have been fallowing this thread since posted – but have not replied till now because I have not been involved in the governing of the club or its sub clubs ever. So I was not sure I had any good insight to share? But I have decided to share some person thoughts on my membership of SCCA (SoCal Solo2) and PSCC. First My son and I joined SCCA back in 2010 as members of Cal Club - SoCal Solo2 so we could come out and spend time together doing something we both enjoyed, racing against each other and learning about it from others. An acquaintance from BMW events David Barrish, who has now become a dear friend along with his family, suggested we join a “sub” club PSCC so we did. Adam and I started helping out more at PSCC sponsored events such as track set-up and tear down when we could. But I never really fully understood, or asked, what the full purpose was for these sub clubs. To this day my son and I still attend local events strictly for the pleasure of spending a day together racing against each other and seeing what changes to the car do for performance and our times. Neither of us have any thoughts/dreams of ever going to the nationals, working towards winning a local class trophy or being at the top of a single events standings. Because we know we will never have the time or money to reach any of these do to work, family responsibilities, other interest. So we are content to strictly come out and autocross for the fun and enjoyment of each event on its own. So why have I brought our story to you – I am wondering how many other current CalClub Autocross members may be like my son and I - in that they: • Have no idea why there are “Sub” Clubs in Cal Club Autocross to begin with. • Have no idea what the “Sub” club responsibilities are when it comes to hosting an event. • Have no idea if or what benefits there are to having joined a sub club – no real sub club group/family interaction drew for new member to want to join one. - I have never seen a SUB club flag or banner at an event to draw new members over to ask more about them and give new members the since they are actually joining a group. It seems to me that the clubs would do better if we parked together at events and acted more like a club at events. • Have any idea who or how the setup of events, tracks and origination of such takes place for an event. (after being involved for 7 years I understand most of this now – but there is not an active education program that I know of to school new members why they need to get involved helping) Point in case is the issue with getting people to just fulfill their work assignment duties. • Do not have the time to become more involved with the governing of clubs or Cal Club, so they do not search out on their own how and why things work the way they do. As in helping out “extra” once or twice a year with track setup/tear down or being in charge of workers at an event. (They simply want to show up run and go home). Sorry to say that I have fallen into this group of laze’s the last couple of years. • I wonder how many members actually log into the forums and read any threads other than “signups for XYZ are now open“? • Run each event for the fun of that event alone and are not concerned with yearend standings. (Because to run a car in any class for yearend standings is costly just in time and money to show up and run 10 to 12 events a year. Let alone tires, fuel and maintenance). I am not complaining just bring up our personal reality. • Also it seems to me that some of this talk has to do with splitting money from entries? As a somewhat outsider to the system I do have to ask what these “sub” clubs do with their share of the money for entries? As I have never seen anything special in activities by a sub club where the money is needed or used? Just me thinking out load. Having said all this I do not know if the new proposal will be better or not in terms of increasing over all member involvement in putting on the events. I will leave that up to those of you who are more involved and a better understanding of the governing of the club. But I would put to you that the Sub club way, as I have referred to it above, may not be a bad way to do things. But simply an under talked about or under promoted way of doing things. Clearly clubs or teams are not an old and no longer relevant way in today’s society proven America’s obsession with sports teams. George Schilling Club Representative Posts: 5103 Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am Club: CASOC Car#: 66 Location: Lakewood, CA ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation When I'm having trouble with difficult decisions, I make a pro/con list. I've just read through the entire thread and have failed to find even one "pro" to the proposed change. Answers like this is how other regions do it, it will make us better, or it's inevitable, are not benefits and lend nothing to the discussion. What exactly are the benefits of the proposed change? Perhaps if the backers behind the change could list the benefits to the region, we could consider them to see if they make sense. At the very least, it's food for discussion. “He who knows all the answers has not been asked all the questions.” ― Confucius CASOC Autocross Club, 1984 Van Diemen RF-84, 1600cc Kent, Hewland Mk9, Centerline 2 pc. wheels, Hoosier R25B, SuperTrapp, Zimmer Alloclassic titanium left hip w/Metasul LDH chromium-cobalt lg dia head Reed Gibson Posts: 180 Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:33 pm Club: SCNAX ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation I guess I'll throw my hat into the ring on this debate finally. I see no reason why we should not pursue unifying the governing body of our region as opposed to keeping the responsibilities spread out through the clubs. When I joined SCNAX I did so because I believed the clubs were purely social aspects of the community and so far, in my experience (which is more involved than most newcomers) I've yet to see any real influence from any clubs other than SCNAX and CASOC on how our region operates. With that in mind, I'm all on board with the proposal to unify our region under one governing body. I don't see how officially separating the social and business aspects of our community is a bad thing. If we can unify and get more people involved with the running of the organization then I'm all for it. If certain members feel that they will be silenced by lack of club representation then tough cookies. I sense that some feel CASOC and SCNAX will essentially take over the smaller clubs by gaining majority influence but this just goes to strengthen the argument moving forward with removing clubs from the e-board. When just two clubs are already doing the overwhelming majority of the work running an organization it only makes sense to unify them so that those on the on the outside have less of a barrier to getting their voice heard. Moving forward, we will likely see many board members come from the two largest clubs, but they will come in on equal footing. If you're a member of a small club and nobody knows who you are, of course you're going to be at a disadvantage for getting your voice heard. But I'd rather have that problem than let a small minority of the population have equal influence to the larger community. Moving forward, I'm sure this will change as those who are genuinely interested in participating will network and gain the support and backing of the general community (you don't see me only working with SCNAX members...) Clubs should continue to exist past this unification, just not in a governing sense. If your club can't continue on without the bonus of e-board influence then its not really doing anything... \end rant Back to something a more community oriented, George Schilling wrote:When I'm having trouble with difficult decisions, I make a pro/con list. I've just read through the entire thread and have failed to find even one "pro" to the proposed change. Answers like this is how other regions do it, it will make us better, or it's inevitable, are not benefits and lend nothing to the discussion. What exactly are the benefits of the proposed change? Perhaps if the backers behind the change could list the benefits to the region, we could consider them to see if they make sense. At the very least, it's food for discussion. This is a great point George. I think if the proposing members can put together a presentation with a well defined list of changes/pros & cons we can iron out any issues that could become an issue down the line. However, we need to continue moving forward rather than swirling around until next year. Sean Fenstermacher Posts: 492 Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 2:56 pm Club: SCNAX Car#: 81 ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation Let's start: Pros (in no particular order): 1) Less confusion from new members regarding purpose of clubs within the regional club (sub-clubs). (as illustrated by various comments in this thread. Please scroll up and read if needed) 2) Potential lower entry fees, due to elimination of need to profit share with hosting club 3) Negate club influences from regional governing decisions 4) Increase rotation of leadership personnel; potentially increase influx of new ideas and current customer viewpoints. 5) Encourage spread awareness and understanding of regional organization duties and know-how (though increase rotation of leadership personnel). 6) Increase positive regional affinity among membership 7) Potential to pool of club material resources for general membership (scales, tools, etc...) 8) Standardize quality of events (hopefully high quality), less variance depending on club Cons 1) All events will be "eBoard" event, where the call to volunteers will made to general membership vs the hosting club recruiting within its club membership pool 2) Possibly less immediate support for newer members, as club can provide an immediate connection to more veteran members 3) Sentimental attachment to the clubs for some members Feel free to add your own! If you disagree with any of the points listed, please direct your energy to listing your own Pros/Cons. Let's be constructive instead of destructive Adam Tarnoff Posts: 311 Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:38 pm Club: CASOC Car#: 49 ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation I agree with Sean #49 C Street Mazda RX-8 George Schilling Club Representative Posts: 5103 Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am Club: CASOC Car#: 66 Location: Lakewood, CA ### Re: Everybody - Please read - Club consolidation Thans for joining the discussion Reed. Let me try and correct a few misconceptions that you and others may have. rmgibson wrote:I'm all on board with the proposal to unify our region under one governing body. We already operate under one governing body. Our voting committee is made up of one representative from each club. Each representative is chosen by his or her respective club. The wisdom in this is that clubs know their members best and can choose who they believe will be best for the region and by extension, the club. If they feel they are not being represented properly, they can replace their representative at any time. The important thing to note is that each club has a seat at the table. Each representative controls between 0 and 6 votes. This is based on primarily on participation numbers. Currently SCNAX and CASOC each have the maximum allowed 6 votes, the remaining clubs less, with one club having 0 votes at the present time. At any time, if a club wishes to gain more influence, they up their participation. SCNAX is a great example of a club who has recently done that. When I first joined, the voting was dominated by GRA and No$.

rmgibson wrote:I don't see how officially separating the social and business aspects of our community is a bad thing. If we can unify and get more people involved with the running of the organization then I'm all for it.

Those of us who serve on the voting committee are all friends through autox and we already operate in a unified manner. On the rare occasions we disagree, the discussion is always civil. I honestly can't remember a time when any clubs' needs were placed ahead of the best interest of the region despite their voting power.

rmgibson wrote:If certain members feel that they will be silenced by lack of club representation then tough cookies. I sense that some feel CASOC and SCNAX will essentially take over the smaller clubs by gaining majority influence but this just goes to strengthen the argument moving forward with removing clubs from the e-board.

I'm not sure I understand this argument. I credit diversity of thought, innovations, and contributions from our various clubs with our success as one of the top regions in the country. I fear direct elections of directors will destroy this diversity of thought and innovation.

rmgibson wrote:When just two clubs are already doing the overwhelming majority of the work running an organization it only makes sense to unify them so that those on the on the outside have less of a barrier to getting their voice heard. Moving forward, we will likely see many board members come from the two largest clubs, but they will come in on equal footing.

Yes, two clubs are doing the majority of the work right now and we are already are on equal footing. That will change with time, it always has. Nothing stays the same for long. Soon, others will take our place as leaders of the region. We just don't know exactly when.

rmgibson wrote:If you're a member of a small club and nobody knows who you are, of course you're going to be at a disadvantage for getting your voice heard.But I'd rather have that problem than let a small minority of the population have equal influence to the larger community. Moving forward, I'm sure this will change as those who are genuinely interested in participating will network and gain the support and backing of the general community (you don't see me only working with SCNAX members...)

Reed, as I see it, direct election of directors can and will coalesce power among a small minority. A powerful club could control all of the directors. As could a small but passionate group. A good example of this is El Toro itself. Orange County desperately needs an international airport. El Toro was the perfect site. A few years ago, the vast majority of voters wanted the airport, but a much smaller passionate group who in or near the flight path won out as they rallied their voters while the rest of the county was apathetic.

To sum up my thoughts, the folks who came before us were wise enough to come up with a brilliant system that rewards those who represent greater participation numbers but still allows smaller clubs a seat at the table. Under this system, no one club can individually dominate the discussion. Letting the clubs decide when it's time for their representative to go is a good thing. The wisdom of someone like Rick Brown to remind us of the pitfalls of prior experiments is invaluable. Honestly, I just don't see how direct elections is a step forward. Excuses like 'this is how other regions do it', or 'it's time' or "we need to move forward', just doesn't cut it for me. If there are benefits to changing the wonderful system we have, what are they?

Reed, thank you for your thoughts and giving me the platform to weigh-in. As one of the future leaders of our region, I hope what I've shared will have you and others pause and rethink your positions.

“By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; Second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third by experience, which is the bitterest.”
― Confucius
CASOC Autocross Club, 1984 Van Diemen RF-84, 1600cc Kent, Hewland Mk9, Centerline 2 pc. wheels, Hoosier R25B, SuperTrapp, Zimmer Alloclassic titanium left hip w/Metasul LDH chromium-cobalt lg dia head

Reed Gibson
Posts: 180
Joined: Mon Mar 23, 2015 12:33 pm
Club: SCNAX

Those are some good clarifications George. I can understand your concern about direct elections versus club representation going forward. I think my biggest gripe/concern is that only two clubs are doing all of the heavy lifting and I would like to see the other clubs increase their contributions in order to even the playing field for all members, regardless of their social preferences.

I'd like to think we can operate going forward with equal representation for each individual (rather than general representation from club delegates) but I can see how jumping straight to this system will have some growing pains. Ultimately, I'd like to see our system become more open and transparent so that newcomers will have an easier time stepping up and getting involved. We are already leaps and bounds ahead of my hometown Sacramento region and it pains me to see my other young friends struggling to get any kind of participation while I've been really embraced by our region. I think all our intentions are pure, we just want to find a good new middle ground to keep our progress up. As we continue the discussion it'll be important for proponents to recognize their own biases and I appreciate you pointing out some my own and keeping the discussion frank but polite.

Q V
Solo Safety Steward
Posts: 1385
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: No\$
Car#: 69
Location: Orange County, CA

George Schilling wrote:The reason behind the proposal is the lack of participation/interest in most clubs.

I totally agree with you here: motivation for me is that whatever we do, it should help quality of events as well as quantity of participants.

Will this proposal do that? I don't know, but keeping the system as-is definitely is not helping (just in my opinion, of course).

I do strongly feel there is much more potential for positive change with the new proposal than there is working within the existing system.

"Only the wisest and stupidest of men never change."
- Confucius

Max Hayter
Posts: 2042
Joined: Thu May 15, 2008 11:26 am
Club: CASOC
Car#: 31
Location: Powdering the boys...