Key questions for Board Nominees prior to the 2021/2022 Elections.

[veris]

This thread is to ask all board nominees questions you'd like answered before the election. 

I will start if off with these 3 "softballs".

 

1. How do you feel about fuel for points? 

2. Are you motivated to find a solution for the abuse of multiple sets of soft/fast tires in a race?

3. Are you for the consistent application of criteria to determine swap weights?

 

For questions other people would like answered, add in sequence, so the next question should be numbered 4.

[hotrod]

Veris I'm hoping to run for the Board of Directors. Waiting to see the final nominees then I'll be happy to answer any & all questions from the members.

Thanks, Bernie Myers 

[riche30]

56 minutes ago, veris said:

This thread is to ask all board nominees questions you'd like answered before the election. 

I will start if off with these 3 "softballs".

 

1. How do you feel about fuel for points? 

2. Are you motivated to find a solution for the abuse of multiple sets of soft/fast tires in a race?

3. Are you for the consistent application of criteria to determine swap weights?

 

For questions other people would like answered, add in sequence, so the next question should be numbered 4.

 

/facepalm

The Board should not be voted in based off of rulebook changes!  The board SHOULD be about running a competent business.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope you all understand you are voting in a board of directors for a non-profit organization that needs business skills.  This is not a tech committee.  They shouldn't spend 12 months of the year fielding rulebook questions.  We need people that understand how to run a business from an administrative level.  People that can support Dana and the staff in making financial decisions, writing and signing contracts, and making CCES a successful business.  

[Chris Huggins]

On 10/26/2021 at 4:11 PM, riche30 said:

 

/facepalm

The Board should not be voted in based off of rulebook changes!  The board SHOULD be about running a competent business.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope you all understand you are voting in a board of directors for a non-profit organization that needs business skills.  This is not a tech committee.  They shouldn't spend 12 months of the year fielding rulebook questions.  We need people that understand how to run a business from an administrative level.  People that can support Dana and the staff in making financial decisions, writing and signing contracts, and making CCES a successful business.  

Rich, has the board changed since you were a member?

 

Ive been here almost a year and I’ve had zero exposure to:

 

Financial records

Contracts

Business Directives or Planning

Schedule planning or strategic initiatives

 

 

the only financial decision we were aware of was the plan to buy Bill a company van instead of the VW.  It was more of a heads up than a request, I’ve got no idea what it cost.

 

Im asking because I was expecting more of what you are asking about, but as of my experience the BOD is a rules and member relations committee.

 

the board members may or may not be business savvy, but that’s not the way things have worked over the last year.

 

 

Edit:

 

it’s been brought to my attention that I wasn’t completely clear with this post.

 

in an effort to correct that:

 

the Bod has a regular standing meeting once a month, for an hour to 90 minutes usually.

 

the first item on the agenda for these regular meetings is the CEO report, where the CEO provides a verbal report on the previous months events.  How the finances look, including account balances, how the races went that month including attendance and P&L numbers, and other things.

 

this report is just that, a report.  The BOD has hired Dana to run the business and he is doing just that.  
 

The original post wasn’t a critique at that, just a honest answer for Rich,  this is how things have worked in the past year.  The BOD isn’t running the business.  We’re reasonably aware of things via that monthly report.  We don’t review or approve purchases or contracts.  We don’t participate in the schedule making.  We don’t hire or fire staff.  We hire a CEO to do that and keep in contact with him.  We review the rules and make adjustments to

those as necessary.  We Interface with members to provide positive or negative feedback.
 

Based on the my experience, your questions to the candidates are irrelevant.

Edited October 27, 2021 by Chris Huggins

[riche30]

5 minutes ago, Chris Huggins said:

Rich, has the board changed since you were a member?

 

Ive been here almost a year and I’ve had zero exposure to:

 

Financial records

Contracts

Business Directives or Planning

Schedule planning or strategic initiatives

 

 

the only financial decision we were aware of was the plan to buy Bill a company van instead of the VW.  It was more of a heads up than a request, I’ve got no idea what it cost.

 

Im asking because I was expecting more of what you are asking about, but as of my experience the BOD is a rules and member relations committee.

 

the board members may or may not be business savvy, but that’s not the way things have worked over the last year.

And that's the problem Chris.  The Board lost its way over the years.  I complained very very loudly my last year that we'd gone from a board that worried about making business decisions to a board that wrote a rulebook.  I'm trying use what little voice I have left to tell people that the rulebook is but a small part of the job, or should be.  

You're part of the active board now. It's on you, and the other six members, to stand up and push the correct issues for your board to address.  Staff pay?  Is everyone properly insured?  Are we getting the best deals with the tracks, insurance providers, etc?  What's new on sponsorship for the series, isn't TireRack's deal about over?  Who's going to maintain the books once Jer is done (which I think he's agreed to help with one more year, but there needs to be a plan after).
 

[riche30]

42 minutes ago, Chris Huggins said:

as of my experience the BOD is a rules and member relations committee.

The board is what the board makes of it.  At the end of the day, the board is the top of this corporation's structural pyramid.  

[veris]

1 hour ago, riche30 said:

 

/facepalm

The Board should not be voted in based off of rulebook changes!  The board SHOULD be about running a competent business.  Ladies and Gentlemen, I hope you all understand you are voting in a board of directors for a non-profit organization that needs business skills.  This is not a tech committee.  They shouldn't spend 12 months of the year fielding rulebook questions.  We need people that understand how to run a business from an administrative level.  People that can support Dana and the staff in making financial decisions, writing and signing contracts, and making CCES a successful business.  

The TAC should make recommendations on the rule book. The Board should vote on it. The board definitely shouldn't spend 12 months of the year fielding rulebook questions. My 3 questions are long standing issues within the organization. I'd like to know their position on the topics to see if they will push to get long standing issues addressed. I didn't ask how many points a gallon of fuel costs. Or what tires rules should be. I asked are they interested in seeing the issues resolved.

 

Now if you aren't interested, don't read the replies.  If you have other questions (as you did) in another thread feel free to post them here. I am interested in their responses to those as well. The purpose of this thread was to get a single location for answering everyone's questions. Thanks for making your own thread... /facepalm.

 

I also concur that the board should be involved in financial decisions. Approving the budget is one of its primary roles. 

 

Business experience on the board is excellent, but the board does NOT need to know how to run a business from an administrative level. That is the CEO and staff's role. They need to have vision, direction, and strategy for the staff to execute. Hopefully one that will grow the organization. 

 

I've not seen a board write and sign contracts. Typically that is the CEO, who is assigned by the board. If the organization needs advice on contracts they should seek professional advice. 

[riche30]

4 hours ago, veris said:

The TAC should make recommendations on the rule book. The Board should vote on it. The board definitely shouldn't spend 12 months of the year fielding rulebook questions. My 3 questions are long standing issues within the organization. I'd like to know their position on the topics to see if they will push to get long standing issues addressed. I didn't ask how many points a gallon of fuel costs. Or what tires rules should be. I asked are they interested in seeing the issues resolved.

 

Now if you aren't interested, don't read the replies.  If you have other questions (as you did) in another thread feel free to post them here. I am interested in their responses to those as well. The purpose of this thread was to get a single location for answering everyone's questions. Thanks for making your own thread... /facepalm.

 

I also concur that the board should be involved in financial decisions. Approving the budget is one of its primary roles. 

 

Business experience on the board is excellent, but the board does NOT need to know how to run a business from an administrative level. That is the CEO and staff's role. They need to have vision, direction, and strategy for the staff to execute. Hopefully one that will grow the organization. 

 

I've not seen a board write and sign contracts. Typically that is the CEO, who is assigned by the board. If the organization needs advice on contracts they should seek professional advice. 

For the record, my thread was up more than 12hours before you posted this.  You could have followed up there just as easily with your questions.

Business experience on any corporate board of directors is imperative.  Just something to chew on, our previous CEO didn't have the business experience necessary to understand that every member of our board of directors was open to lawsuit in the event of an accident.  It took people with actual business experience to come in and help the CEO recognize that all the staff, all the volunteers, and all our board members need to be insured in such an event.  

I love Dana as a person.  I was one of his biggest supporters to be the new face of our series.  However, Dana does not have a great deal of experience when it comes to running multi-million dollar organizations.  The board of directors should be involved in the aspects of this business to the point where they can support him.  Chris Huggins just pointed out the problem.  He's been on the board near a year and has no idea of our financial situation.  Of what our business plans are.  Etc.  Who's asking the administrative questions and making sure those things are handled?  

Have you read the bylaws for our organization?  The board can execute contacts, bank notes, etc.  Those are things our bylaws actually say we should be involved in.  Our bylaws make no mention of the rulebook.

But, if we want to keep beating that dead horse on fuel for points again, let's do it.  How many years in a row does someone have to explain that offering fuel for points completely changes the entire VPI list and creates bigger problems?  Or explain again that swap weights aren't even a thing anymore?  We quit calling it that two years ago and have embraced a new term (SPV I think it is) and freely admit that its a balance of performance number, not an actual weight.  Multiple petitions were submitted and shot down the past two years about tire changes during a race and all of them have been denied.

Your questions belong to TAC, not the BoD.

[riche30]

I guess I should point it out that I'm speaking of someone who has spent three years on the board of directors for this series, my tenure ending at the end of 2020.  I'm gone.  Doc is gone.  Chisek is gone.  Jerry and Bruce are leaving.  There's going to be a vacuum for executive level experience in our organization.  

[Bandit]

38 minutes ago, riche30 said:

Chris Huggins just pointed out the problem.  He's been on the board near a year and has no idea of our financial situation.  Of what our business plans are.  Etc.  Who's asking the administrative questions and making sure those things are handled?  

That is insane.

 

Like you say, the BOD's job shouldn't be to argue over the rulebook 12 months out of the year.

[riche30]

8 hours ago, Bandit said:

That is insane.

 

Like you say, the BOD's job shouldn't be to argue over the rulebook 12 months out of the year.

And yet, the members are large that vote in our board of directors keep asking questions about the rulebook instead of changing the focus.  I know i'm coming out here and sounding like an a-hole, but my hope is to drive the conversation into a different direction.

[Ray Franck]

6 minutes ago, riche30 said:

And yet, the members are large that vote in our board of directors keep asking questions about the rulebook instead of changing the focus.  I know i'm coming out here and sounding like an a-hole, but my hope is to drive the conversation into a different direction.

  We have not always seen things the same way Rich but you are spot on here in this thread.  So far..lol

[Andrew D Johnson]

34 minutes ago, riche30 said:

And yet, the members are large that vote in our board of directors keep asking questions about the rulebook instead of changing the focus.  I know i'm coming out here and sounding like an a-hole, but my hope is to drive the conversation into a different direction.

I think having served on the BOD you have a very different perspective than the rest of us, and a better understanding about how the club actually operates.  I know I am very interested in your thoughts on the BOD going forward. 

[riche30]

9 minutes ago, Andrew D Johnson said:

I think having served on the BOD you have a very different perspective than the rest of us, and a better understanding about how the club actually operates.  I know I am very interested in your thoughts on the BOD going forward. 

I'm an open book Andrew.  If you have questions, ask away.

 

 

37 minutes ago, Ray Franck said:

  We have not always seen things the same way Rich but you are spot on here in this thread.  So far..lol

Thank you Ray.  Appreciate that.  However I do have reservations about an employee such as yourself running for a board seat that I'd be remiss to express.  I feel that's a conflict of interest (and one I've expressed in years past even with Doc and Tiffany being given volunteer credits, not as paid employees).  It's not about you the man, as I don't think you'd ever abuse your power as a board member.  It's about putting procedures in place to prevent it from being able to happen.  Should a person working for Dana be somewhat responsible for Dana's employment?  Would Dana be comfortable terminating an employee that was also serving on the Board?  Just things to think about. 

[Ray Franck]

 I know some may feel that way But I feel the board has gone a-stray and made many decisions about Technical  aspects while never reaching out to anyone about what consequences those changes will be or how many teams it will effect. So having knowledge of how things are done from top to bottom in this organization may actually be a good thing. I do think I have more contact with membership than about anyone on staff so I know how membership feels about club changes and rulings.

   I have run my own busness's since 1979, and have had a couple of $1,000,000+ gross years, cofounded a Fire Dept, been Chief and served as President overseeing, and managing a $400,000 + yearly budget for over 15 years, and served on the board of our youth ball league for two terms so I might bring some good to the table.

  Phil Mcenany worked for Champcar and served on the board for years previously. 

  Dana and I have discussed the different thoughts and scenarios that may come up and decided to cross that bridge when we get there, I am long way from elected, and I do not have to keep this job and would much rather get on track and kick butt.

   I have not received offical notification that I have been nominated,  just have had enough members come telling me they nominated me to know I have. Otherwise I would not have answered here.

[riche30]

2 minutes ago, Ray Franck said:

 I know some may feel that way But I feel the board has gone a-stray and made many decisions about Technical  aspects while never reaching out to anyone about what consequences those changes will be or how many teams it will effect. So having knowledge of how things are done from top to bottom in this organization may actually be a good thing. I do think I have more contact with membership than about anyone on staff so I know how membership feels about club changes and rulings.

   I have run my own busness's since 1979, and have had a couple of $1,000,000+ gross years, cofounded a Fire Dept, been Chief and served as President overseeing, and managing a $400,000 + yearly budget for over 15 years, and served on the board of our youth ball league for two terms so I might bring some good to the table.

  Phil Mcenany worked for Champcar and served on the board for years previously. 

  Dana and I have discussed the different thoughts and scenarios that may come up and decided to cross that bridge when we get there, I am long way from elected, and I do not have to keep this job and would much rather get on track and kick butt.

   I have not received offical notification that I have been nominated,  just have had enough members come telling me they nominated me to know I have. Otherwise I would not have answered here.

 

Ray, I have no doubts you bring good to the table and your insight with the membership is invaluable.  Phil was gone shortly after I joined the board or else I would have had my same issues with his presence.  Honestly if I'd remembered him I'd have made mention of that as well.

[enginerd]

1 hour ago, riche30 said:

And yet, the members are large that vote in our board of directors keep asking questions about the rulebook instead of changing the focus.  I know I'm coming out here and sounding like an a-hole, but my hope is to drive the conversation into a different direction.

Responding to your posts in general, I think many of the "rulebook questions" have more to do with the business of the club than you give them credit for. Every year, several petitions request a bunch of free parts and the idea is often "these are used on WRL cars, and we want them to be able to crossover and race here without taking laps". Deciding whether or not to approve these is, in part, a business decision. It is also a big picture "vision of the future" decision, too. I think guiding the future of the club in this way is a great use of the board's time.

 

Also I'll add in that (as far I know) this is not a business, it's a membership organization racing club thing. You have referred to it as a corporation, a business, etc. I am told that the goal of a company / business is to generate as much profit as possible. I think the goal of a membership organization racing club thing is to deliver the best racing experience possible. These two goals are not always aligned with each other.  Fighting to attract as many racers as possible may be the best company decision, but if it means a worse racing experience for current members then it isn't the best club decision.

[JDChristianson]

18 hours ago, veris said:

This thread is to ask all board nominees questions you'd like answered before the election. 

I will start if off with these 3 "softballs".

 

1. How do you feel about fuel for points? 

2. Are you motivated to find a solution for the abuse of multiple sets of soft/fast tires in a race?

3. Are you for the consistent application of criteria to determine swap weights?

 

For questions other people would like answered, add in sequence, so the next question should be numbered 4.

Thought I'd quote this to see if anyone would like to answer a members questions.   

 

Rich has some good thoughts and we know what they are now.  

 

I'm interested in the above questions, and 

 

1) What are the views of those running on what the long term goals of the club are or should be?  

 

2) How could the club leadership improve communication and involvement of the membership?

 

 

[riche30]

15 minutes ago, enginerd said:

Responding to your posts in general, I think many of the "rulebook questions" have more to do with the business of the club than you give them credit for. Every year, several petitions request a bunch of free parts and the idea is often "these are used on WRL cars, and we want them to be able to crossover and race here without taking laps". Deciding whether or not to approve these is, in part, a business decision. It is also a big picture "vision of the future" decision, too. I think guiding the future of the club in this way is a great use of the board's time.

 

Also I'll add in that (as far I know) this is not a business, it's a membership organization racing club thing. You have referred to it as a corporation, a business, etc. I am told that the goal of a company / business is to generate as much profit as possible. I think the goal of a membership organization racing club thing is to deliver the best racing experience possible. These two goals are not always aligned with each other.  Fighting to attract as many racers as possible may be the best company decision, but if it means a worse racing experience for current members then it isn't the best club decision.

Well, all I can ask here is have you read the bylaws?  The first thing our bylaws state is that CCES is "A California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation".  Just because we're non-profit does not mean we aren't to be run as a business.

How are we best serving our members if we don't have a good business plan?  Or if we don't have the proper operating income to operate events?  Are we best serving our members by not trying to attract newer members?  Personally, I like having people to race.  Members leave for myriads of reasons, you have to replace them or the series dies.  I don't think CCES has to have the largest fields in the country, but we do have to maintain good car counts.  That's been an issue at some tracks.  

We have already an 8 person TAC, 2-3 tech staffers, two race directors, and a host of other volunteers looking out for our rulebook issues.  Who's stepping up to help us look after business aspects of the series?  Who's bringing that experience to the series?

[Ray Franck]

35 minutes ago, JDChristianson said:

Thought I'd quote this to see if anyone would like to answer a members questions.   

 

Rich has some good thoughts and we know what they are now.  

 

I'm interested in the above questions, and 

 

1) What are the views of those running on what the long term goals of the club are or should be?  

 

2) How could the club leadership improve communication and involvement of the membership?

 

 

 To my knowledge the official nominated list is not out. I have not given or been asked to give a bio yet.  I'm sure all candidates will answer these and more questions once the race begins.

 

[veris]

13 hours ago, riche30 said:

For the record, my thread was up more than 12hours before you posted this.  You could have followed up there just as easily with your questions.

Business experience on any corporate board of directors is imperative.  Just something to chew on, our previous CEO didn't have the business experience necessary to understand that every member of our board of directors was open to lawsuit in the event of an accident.  It took people with actual business experience to come in and help the CEO recognize that all the staff, all the volunteers, and all our board members need to be insured in such an event.  

I love Dana as a person.  I was one of his biggest supporters to be the new face of our series.  However, Dana does not have a great deal of experience when it comes to running multi-million dollar organizations.  The board of directors should be involved in the aspects of this business to the point where they can support him.  Chris Huggins just pointed out the problem.  He's been on the board near a year and has no idea of our financial situation.  Of what our business plans are.  Etc.  Who's asking the administrative questions and making sure those things are handled?  

Have you read the bylaws for our organization?  The board can execute contacts, bank notes, etc.  Those are things our bylaws actually say we should be involved in.  Our bylaws make no mention of the rulebook.

But, if we want to keep beating that dead horse on fuel for points again, let's do it.  How many years in a row does someone have to explain that offering fuel for points completely changes the entire VPI list and creates bigger problems?  Or explain again that swap weights aren't even a thing anymore?  We quit calling it that two years ago and have embraced a new term (SPV I think it is) and freely admit that its a balance of performance number, not an actual weight.  Multiple petitions were submitted and shot down the past two years about tire changes during a race and all of them have been denied.

Your questions belong to TAC, not the BoD.

Your correct, your post was up before mine. Sorry; my bad. 

 

I haven't read the Champcar bylaws.  I'm not running for office and am already on 3 boards (profit and nonprofit) their bylaws are punishment enough. I'm surprised the board writes and signs contracts outside of employment, but it is what it is.

 

The Champcar product is races; it is only races. The membership are both the client and the elector. The board is accountable for the races and the rule book back to the membership. The board should provide direction. The TAC should be providing analysis and recommendations. The board should vote on it. In the cases/questions I raised, IMO, the board should send the following directives to the TAC. 

• 1. Take a serious look at fuel for point. Provide options (including status quo), analysis, and a recommendation in time for possible inclusion into the 2023 rule book.
• 2. Resolve the tire use issues. The status quo is not acceptable. Provide options, analysis, and recommendation in time for the inclusion into 2023 rule book. 
• 3. Take a look at the PWR calculator. Determine what cars are using manipulated weights and by how much. Cross reference performance vs non swapped cars of the same point value. Provide a report to the board. No recommendations required, this is a review of the current state. 

That is an example of how the board should be dealing with the questions I raised and all rule book changes for that matter. If the board is getting into the muck of the issues then that is on the board, but to say the board is not accountable for the product [which are the races including the rule book] is a complete fallacy. That is exactly what you are suggesting by saying this is a TAC issue. 100% wrong. 

 

Speaking of rule book muck, I suspect much of the issue is the insane number of petitions. A handful of members are responsible for the VAST majority of petitions. If the board is spending hours on it, restrict petitions to 1 or 2 per member. 

 

I'm not surprised you disagree on a couple points. You were on the board when it occurred. That isn't a shot at you, it simply the fact that if you did see this as a problem it would have been solved. re: anthropological principle. Respect and disagreement are not mutually exclusive.

 

Champcar isn't the only product out there. Race numbers are down. It might be Covid and economy related. It might be competition. It might be rule book. People choose other options when they are treated poorly or unfairly. That includes the inability to fairly compete and win. I suspect it is a combination. Maybe the board should direct a survey to find out why people are attending/not attending?

 

The board needs to provide TAC direction. Then focus on the sustainability and growth of Champcar while the TAC is in the muck of the rule book issues.  Typically this is by direction to the CEO and staff related to some of the great questions you asked. 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by veris

[riche30]

3 hours ago, veris said:

That is an example of how the board should be dealing with the questions I raised and all rule book changes for that matter. If the board is getting into the muck of the issues then that is on the board, but to say the board is not accountable for the product [which are the races including the rule book] is a complete fallacy. That is exactly what you are suggesting by saying this is a TAC issue. 100% wrong. 

 

 

The three subjects you want looked at have been looked at multiple times over the last three years.  I was trying to communicate that each year the status quo is what was finally decided.  

[hotrod]

23 minutes ago, riche30 said:

 

The three subjects you want looked at have been looked at multiple times over the last three years.  I was trying to communicate that each year the status quo is what was finally decided.  

Rich my experience with the board of Directors voting is that it's just a popularity contest. Last year more than ever. I hope to change that this year.....

[LuckyKid]

Perhaps if there is a unifying vision and mission for the organization with values, and goals and objectives to achieving this vision that could guide the "product" of CCES.  The product being a rulebook and events for its members.  Right now it seems people are trying to mold CCES into what they want it to be via rules since everyone has a different idea about what CCES is and can be.  
 

[veris]

3 hours ago, riche30 said:

 

The three subjects you want looked at have been looked at multiple times over the last three years.  I was trying to communicate that each year the status quo is what was finally decided.  

 

Respectfully, other then the tire issue I don't think that is true beyond a cursory discussion. 

 

The fact that these keep coming should probably indicate to the board that they should properly address concerns. 

• Have an actual options assessment and recommendation by TAC done. Vote on it. Make the assessment public. 
  • IMO this is the least important of the 3 topics.
• Actually solve the tire issue. 
  • IMO this is the most important of the 3 topics. 
• Actually have the series be able to quantify the manipulations. 
  • This is curb, this is default swap weight (curb -10%), this is the adjusted "SFV" found in the calculator. 
    • This is so poorly done now it is shocking. You need to cross reference car by car the spreadsheet against the calculator manually. 
    • TAC members are involved with at-least 2 of the chassis with massive adjustments. 
      • Everything is probably above board, but the transparency is godawful. 
    • This will definitely blow up in the series face. 

 

The board doesn't need to do any of things actively. It just needs to provide leadership / directives. The whole tire fiasco just highlights this issue. 

 

I think we are going to have to agree to disagree...

Edited October 27, 2021 by veris