Quiet and respectful questions for ARCOM

[Factor]

There is a lot of heat on the ARCOM issue at the moment - I happen to think that the Commission is counterproductive to the sport, but I want to move the debate away from personal attacks and focus on direct questions - Here are some - and yes I have asked these of the Commission:

1. IS the ARC Healthy - what do you think it needs to be called successful.
   
2. Is state rallying successful - I can tell you its all but dead in Qld
   
3. Is club rallying successful - yes if you belong to amsag - otherwise no.

Has CAMS/ARCOM/Rallycorp taken the sport forward or backward. How do you measure that? How can we measure that in the future.

Do you agree that short sighted opportunism has occurred and not been in the best long term interests of the sport, e.g. making 4wd Magnas eligible for Aussie Car class is one good example.

Do you agree that there have been rules bent for some and do you think this is a sensible and reasonable approach. e.g. allowing the factory fords to run at RAlly Q when they where at 125 db - can we have an assurance that no one will be more equal in the future?

If ARCOM/CAMS/Rallycorp is prepared to publish their performance criteria then we can sit back and hold them accountable, if they are not prepared to publish their criteria why not, If they have none, then how do they know whether they are doing good or bad?

Please notice - no accusation or insult has been directed at any person - lets see if we can keep it that way.

[Spac]

You knew this was doomed to failure, didn't you Factor?

Questions like these will always be met with a stony silence, for a number of reasons:
1. Its clear that you've thought about them - which obviously means that you must be setting some sort of trap.
2. You've already eliminated the "You're simply being rude, so I won't continue to participate in this discussion any more" escape route.
3. There is no answer that is satisfactory to the majority of rallyists - "We do what we think the board will allow us" is sure to go down like the ARCs fortunes a lead balloon.

Instead, you need to be antagonistic and include some easily refuted misinformation. This will ensure that you'll get a response (albeit one driven by anger/frustration) and at least some of the pieces of the puzzle will fall into place.
Then in a few months time, you can repeat the process and get a few more pieces.
But like I said, there's no way that openly asking direct questions would have a hope of attracting any form of worthwhile response.

(And I do recognise and appreciate the fact that Col has been actively engaging in the recent past - the above is based on the overall trends, rather than the last week or so. One swallow does not a summer make, and all that. Few things would make me happier than to look back at this in six months time and realise that I'm completely wrong).

[Col Trinder]

Originally Posted by Factor

There is a lot of heat on the ARCOM issue at the moment - I happen to think that the Commission is counterproductive to the sport, but I want to move the debate away from personal attacks and focus on direct questions - Here are some - and yes I have asked these of the Commission:

1. IS the ARC Healthy - what do you think it needs to be called successful.
   
2. Is state rallying successful - I can tell you its all but dead in Qld
   
3. Is club rallying successful - yes if you belong to amsag - otherwise no.

Has CAMS/ARCOM/Rallycorp taken the sport forward or backward. How do you measure that? How can we measure that in the future.

Do you agree that short sighted opportunism has occurred and not been in the best long term interests of the sport, e.g. making 4wd Magnas eligible for Aussie Car class is one good example.

Do you agree that there have been rules bent for some and do you think this is a sensible and reasonable approach. e.g. allowing the factory fords to run at RAlly Q when they where at 125 db - can we have an assurance that no one will be more equal in the future?

If ARCOM/CAMS/Rallycorp is prepared to publish their performance criteria then we can sit back and hold them accountable, if they are not prepared to publish their criteria why not, If they have none, then how do they know whether they are doing good or bad?

Please notice - no accusation or insult has been directed at any person - lets see if we can keep it that way.

Much better. I am attending the ARCom meeting over the next two days so I'll have to get back to answering this a little later (maybe a week) - definitley worthy of a thoughtful and considered response.

[legend]

Dear Arcom,

Should I fake my orgasms?

oh, No. I think i've been here before, and we all know how that ended.

[Darryn Snooks]

Originally Posted by Factor

[*]Is state rallying successful - I can tell you its all but dead in Qld
[*]Is club rallying successful - yes if you belong to amsag - otherwise no.

Clearly I am not going to answer all of this but from a Victorian Prospective I would say that rallying is reasonably healthy at both state and club level. That is not to say it could not be better but we had many oversubscribed fields in 2009 certainly at club level!

Sure, we do not have nearly the number of events that we once used to (like 3 per weekend) and we do not have the access to some of our forests (since they got privatised) but overall I think things are not too bad. From my observations I would also draw that conclusion of SA (at least at SARC level)

Just a Mexican's observations
Cheers
Darryn (minus the arcom cap on this one)

[Ric Cary]

1)What measures have been taken to address the " input" from all the previous requests for submissions, what positive outcomes have been achieved, how have they been measured ?

2)How would you rate ARCOMs success during the term of your tenure or indeed the previous incumbents.

no harm in trying again I guess

[DaveTrees]

Originally Posted by Darryn Snooks

Clearly I am not going to answer all of this but from a Victorian perspective I would say that rallying is reasonably healthy at both state and club level. That is not to say it could not be better but we had many oversubscribed fields in 2009 certainly at club level!

I generally agree with Darryn about club level, but not so sure about the VRC? I don't follow the state championship all that closely I'll admit, but I don't think there a large numbers of crews seriously contesting it (as opposed to primarily "clubman" crews who do some of the events). I did 2 rounds last year, but that was on the basis of them being events/areas I liked rather than the fact that they were VRC rounds.

Depends very much how you define "healthy", I suppose - is it purely a matter of field size, or level of competition between crews (whether at outright or class level) ?

Personally, I don't think field size is the be-all & end-all as a measure of what makes a successful event or series.

Andrew's comment about AMSAG is pretty much irrelevant outside NSW, I would have thought ?

Sorry Darryn - couldn't resist playing spelling nazi

[Ausrally]

Originally Posted by Ric Cary

1)
2)How would you rate ARCOMs success during the term of your tenure or indeed the previous incumbents.

While we are all in question asking mode, Ric and Nathan - How would you summarize your stints on the NSWRAP? What did the NSWRAP achieve whilst your were both incumbents?

A fair question with no malice intended.

[Ian Bigg]

Originally Posted by Ausrally

While we are all in question asking mode, Ric and Nathan - How would you summarize your stints on the NSWRAP? What did the NSWRAP achieve whilst your were both incumbents?

A fair question with no malice intended.

A lot, lot less than we should have ..... (I can say that 'cos I was the chair at the time)

[Mike Cherry]

Or "could" have, Ian. (straight up question,BTW)

[Dave Kelly]

With all due respect to the queries of Col asking for him to assess his own performance, plus Dallas' similar question to Ric and Nathan, I think that in all cases the questions are unfair and perhaps slightly off the mark.

In assessing ones performance in a role, it is ALWAYS better to have other assessment done so as to more objectively gauge the level of performance.

In my corporate career I have worked closely with a number of Corporate and Statutory Boards (Boards of Directors essentially are analogous to the structure of Commissions and Panels etc) and ALL have had objective assessment done on at least an annual basis. With these assessments, whilst a very small component of such assessment is self-made (for comparison purposes), of far more use is either assessment by ones peers on the Board or assessment via a 360 degree type analysis.

On this basis, I would like then to put these supplementary questions to Col.

Col,

What assessment on performance is done of the members of ARCom and how is this assessment done?

How often does this assessment occur?

Taking the outcomes of any such assessment/s, what measures are then put in place to address any identified shortcomings and/or knowledge/performance gaps?

If there are no objective assessments done of ARCom member performance, why is this so?

Cheers

David

[Ausrally]

Dave:

I did not see my questions as unfair, nor off the mark. I think its fair to ask anyone in this sport straight up about how they feel they have performed in the past or currently are performing when they hold any position on any CAMS panel or board for that matter.

Dave, those questions you ask of Col,(which frankly are no different in nature to mine) maybe you should direct at CAMS (They are Cols "Peers". They appointed him. Surely its them who determine performance of panels and commissions and the members herein.

After all they did sack the NSWRAP a while back so thy must have some criteria for performance?

Don't ask the teacher how the class is going. Ask the headmaster or better still the parents.

Ask CAMS.

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Ausrally

While we are all in question asking mode, Ric and Nathan - How would you summarize your stints on the NSWRAP? What did the NSWRAP achieve whilst your were both incumbents?

A fair question with no malice intended.

Jeez, you're testing my memory Dallas - a lot has happened in my life since I departed the panel at the end of 2007...
From what I can remember - and I'm certainly not trying to claim that any of it was my work (for better or for worse):

1. Restructured the NSW State/Clubman/Novice championships, in an attempt to provide distinction between the various series, and to offer a viable 'escape route' from CAMS' ever more difficult requirements at higher level events. It was also an attempt to encourage clubs to offer more Minidulla/Snap-On style events.

This ultimately fell over, primarily because the panel did not do enough to 'sell' the changes, particularly to host clubs.

2. Initiated the Forestry MOU.
This was progressing brilliantly, until we got to a point that it needed a push from CAMS.
It is still pending.

3. Initiated the new and greatly improved Rally Rego scheme.
Again, it was on the verge of happening, when other people from CAMS got involved and the ball was dropped.
The ball has since been picked back up, but again, it needs a shove from our powers-that-be.

4. Initiated the points-for-officiating system in the various NSW series, after direct consulatation with the competitors showed that it was overwhelmingly supported.

5. Changed the process to create the calendar of events (including allocation of rounds to various clubs/events, etc). This was an improvement, but still left some people dissatisfied.

6. Submitted to GAZcom a fairer way of allocating times to competitors in the event of stopping to render assistance etc. GAZcom rejected it because it used "impeccable logic" (and, IMHO, because they didn't think of it...).

7. Altered the way driver grading points are allocated, to give the Driver Grading list some relevance (particularly due to its impact on who is eligible for Clubman).
Last time I looked, this initative had simply been ignored by the person who was supposed to implement it.

8. Altered the vehicle eligibility for Clubman, in response to competitor requests, and following the popularity/success of the ACT Series.
This has since been watered down.

9. Defined the place of pace-noted rounds in the NSW State Championship and the NSW Clubman series. We took a 'toe in the water' approach, with the specific intention to see how noted events were received before making any blanket decisions.
This has since been altered, in a manner that appears to have ignored the feedback we'd been receiving, and is contary to the direction the RAP had been expecting to take.

10. Actively worked at improving competitor feedback to event organisers, in an attempt to improve events in subsequent years, to the benefit of competitors and event organisers alike.
Don't know why this died - too much work for the result, I guess.

I'm sure there's more, and that's in addition to the day-to-day running of the panel ("Club X wants to move their event to the following weeked - that puts it only a fortnight before Club Y's event - is this a problem" etc etc etc).

[Ausrally]

Thanks and a good reply. What it shows is that despite what many think RAPS and ARcom work on a hell of a lot of stuff: not all of it works out.

Thanks again.

[Spac]

Originally Posted by Ausrally

.... not all of it works out.

Indeed... But from my time on the panel, most stuff didn't work out because 'other people' didn't want it to - often because it didn't suit their own agenda.
Those people were invariably embedded within the CAMS system, and would have been expected to be acting for the good of the sport - but apparently not.