Steve Kroop <<email>> writes:

At the BOD meeting the competition work group gave us a very professional presentation but it did not cover the details of this proposal. The BOD was then asked to vote if the work group should proceed to the next step, which was, as you point out, to do what should have been done first- query the comp pilots, meet directors and meet organizers. Had we had an opportunity to actually read the proposal prior to being asked to vote I would have voted to stop this thing dead in its tracks because the proposal is out of touch with the needs of the competition community. No disrespect to the members of the work group is intended- I know they put a lot of work into this and I am sure they believe this is a good thing. But I believe the product is the result of a flawed process. The current rulebook, for good reason, says that the competition community is to be involved in any changes to the rulebook.

The underlying premise of the work group, I am told, was to increase participation in competition and I think everyone is in agreement with that precept. While our current competition system is not perfect, I would say that by and large it works well. Throwing out our current system that is working in the hope that some new system may indirectly increase participation is a mistake when our efforts should be directed at targeting growth initiatives directly. We can make a few tweaks to the current system, which will require minimal effort and resources allowing us to focus our time and resources directly on the issue of growing participation. Paraphrasing the president elect, 'we need a scalpel not a hatchet'.