Revised Bylaws Change: Art 2, Sec 6 Event Admission

The club bans someone with a stated reason.
The banned person will replies the stated reason is contrived and in bad faith.
What then? A trial? A polygraph?

D Lokun

Jerry, nice well thought out post. I am aware of the one "exception" you are referring to and I don't think he has a question of why he was not allowed to compete. Most clubs with this ruling will just make sure they have a good reason to send someone away as they will he held to task for the reason. With this in mind, I really doubt that there will be much of a instance where the club was at fault and less so in the future or at least I hope so. As the Board cannot be at every show, a lot of trust has to be on the officials of the club to do the right thing. This ruling is for that rare instance when something goes awry and hopefully it will pass and we won't have future problems.

First -let me here state that I have only participated in about 20-24 Concours and not in rally or slalom competition, and only in those Concours held by Clubs in the SE and southern NE ÔÇô(where Southern gentleman are expected to behave in all respects as Gentlemen), and therefore (as far as I am aware) I have never heard of ANYONE (with one exception ÔÇôand for good reason) of being banned from these ClubÔÇÖs Concours competition.

BUT -I do know that we (in the South) take our competition seriously, and with the risk of being banned from having future JCNA-sanctioned events for any reason unacceptable to the JCNA BoD (as stated in SteveÔÇÖs original proposal), it is very highly unlikely that a Club would risk banning someone for a frivolous (or possibly unacceptable) reason. ÔÇô(threat #1)
As far as the banned entrant is concerned ÔÇô(before admission)- I feel it is very appropriate that the Club involved should immediately return all registration fees (if paid in advance) ÔÇô(threat #2).

IF THE REASON FOR THE BAN SHOULD BE SUBSIQUENTLY JUDGED UNACCEPTABLE BY JCNA: - I would be in favor of requiring that the offending Club be required to reimburse the erroneously banned entrant for ONE nightÔÇÖs stay at the Host hotel (assuming that they stayed in the hotel the night preceding the event), and $0.30 per mile traveled from their home base to the Event site ÔÇô(threat #3).
The JCNA-imposed Club event ban would not be lifted until all of the ClubÔÇÖs requirements are satisfied. ÔÇô (threat #4)
JCNA could also levy a fine of some amount (perhaps $500) ÔÇôdepending upon the egregiousness of the reason given and the actions of the offending Club. ÔÇô(threat #5).

AFTER ADMISSION TO THE EVENT: - I advocate that the Event-Officials should have the right to eject an entrant from the field for misbehavior ÔÇô(perhaps after one warning ÔÇôor with a posted warning that such right exists) with the entrant having the right to protest to JCNA for such action (should they so desire)ÔÇôwith implementation of the JCNA-imposed requirements as stated above ÔÇô(with the exclusion of the immediate return of registration fees -pending judgment of the BoD). Any points awarded at that event to the Entrant would be held in reserve until the decision by the BoD, and awarded only by the ruling of the BoD.

Any Entrant making a frivolous complaint AGAINST a Club shall be banned from participating in all such JCNA-sanctioned Events for (at least) the following year and threat of removal of their JCNA membership.

I do NOT feel that the banned entrant should be awarded points for any event they did not participate in. I believe that the above threats against the Club should be sufficient to greatly preclude banning for a frivolous reason, and filing an unwarrented complaint by a disgrunted Entrant.

That's my problem with this.
I see them so intertwined you cannot separate them.
If you do, and address only one part of the issue, the rest of the issue might come back and bite you on the hindquarters.

If, as stated, this is a response to litigation, what kind of litigation are we to face if the reasons are given the appeal is in favour of the participant, and he wants his points?

How do you "make him whole" again?

Steve: I understand the issue is what recourse does one have if banned from an event and not why is one banned. But those two issues are linked and in many ways one affects the other. This issue of explaining why someone is banned from an event doesn't seem to do anyone any real good. When notified the refused participant is still refused the opportunity to show, slalom or rally their car and the club still, rightly or wrongly. had it's way. I think the best way to address this issue is to address the larger issue of banning someone in the first place,

Wouldn't the whole probl;em go away if a club could only recommend the national organization ban an individual from participating in JCNA sanctions events in general only if that potential participant is not a member of JCNA in good standing and has violates some specific preestablished criteria. If a particular club wants to ban a specific member there should be a mechanism at the national level that allows a club to petition the national organization to ban a member. The reasonf ror banning should be clearly spelled out with the member being given the opportunity to tell his or her side of the story.

If a participant's transgression is severe enough to warrant being banned from particioation in an event it should be severe enough to cause him or her to be banned from all JCNA events; that should only be decided at a national level.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Steve Kennedy wrote: "I thought this thing was simple from the beginning. The club has the right to deny entry to any Entrant.

The Entrant should have the right to ask Why? If the reason is, Your car is better than Mine, the BoD would side with the Entrant. If the reason is You are a belligerent drunk, then the BoD would side with the club.

I am still open to suggestions as to how to solve this matter.

Seems to me there is no easy way to provide direct redress to someone who is the victim of malice on the part of event organizers, but indirect redress is easy: if the JCNA exec doesn't agree with the reason to exclude an entrant, the reason and the JCNA response get published for the world to see. (Or at least the part of the world that matters: the folks who read this stuff.)

Steve-
I suppose this all stems from the bits in thread number one on vacating scores.
Seems you have changed that, but it's still stuck in the grey cells.

Dick-

I am surmising that even though this only addresses enforcement of response to the JCNA from the Clubs, I am seeing that it is being brought based upon a complaint by an individual who was barred from an event.
While in no way does it address his (or her) being barred, nor does it insure that he or she will not be barred again, it does attempt to give teeth to the JCNA National to force the local non-responsive clubs to either respond or give up sanctioned events.

What, once this is done, to you plan on doing to "make whole" the individuals banned or barred, if the JCNA determines the bans were frivolous or unwarranted?

That one will probably come up next.

Once you pass this, then the next person barred or banned, will appeal, and if successful, will most likely engage in some type of litigation to recover costs of preparation, travel, and lost scores, and we will be right back here again, no?

I thought this thing was simple from the beginning. The club has the right to deny entry to any Entrant.

The Entrant should have the right to ask Why? If the reason is, Your car is better than Mine, the BoD would side with the Entrant. If the reason is You are a belligerent drunk, then the BoD would side with the club.

I am still open to suggestions as to how to solve this matter.

OK, Dick. I'm confused.

Going back to Steve's original proposal (first post) he states, "The reason for denial must be acceptable to the JCNA board of directors." And, his original post stated that the results could be invalidated. We've now amended that to "Failure to respond to the letter from the Entrant to the satisfaction of the JCNA Board of Directors will cause the clubs ability to hold another sanctioned event of the same type to be withheld until the matter is resolved."

Everyone posting assumed "the matter" was a response and acceptance of that response by the BoD. What you're saying is that "the matter" is not acceptance of the response, just a response, any response. Am I correct?

If I'm on the right track, the reason that the member was denied entry has nothing to do with a denial of future sanctions and the only action taken by the BoD is if the club doesn't respond. If the BoD is stating the reason must be acceptible, but the BoD can't do anything if it's not, why bother to have the reason be acceptible?

See why we're confused? Everyone reading the proposal assumed that the teeth behind demanding a response were the same teeth behind the demand that the reason be acceptible. If there are no teeth, there's no reason to demand that the reason be acceptible. Just leave that part out.

If that's the case, though, I have no idea what the point is behind the proposal is. The club could just write back "We don't like the guy," or "The guy was going to beat our guy if we let him participate, so we didn't." What is the BoD going to do? This rule doesn't grant them the power to do anything if they don't like the reason.

Now my head hurts, too.

Okay.
The amendment is designed to provide recourse (and penalties) if a barred member appeals.
Has nothing to do with being barred.

My head hurts.

Dave, Not a bad idea but still not the issue here. Need to make a proposal and as mentioned, it is a bit late for this years AGM but we can work on it for next year. Do realize that whether this amendment passes or not, it has no effect on the problems you mentioned about being denied entrance. The amendment addresses the problem at hand and is our best idea at this time to help solve it. Other problems can and will be addressed as needed.

Okay, Dick.

What do you propose to do about the "missed score" for the denied entrant if his appeal is upheld?
What does anyone intend to do about the expense of prep and travel lost due to denial?

Could it be as simple as if the club in question (whoever) accepts your pre-registration, runs your card or cashes your check, they canNOT deny entrance?

Dave, this is not about whether you are allowed to compete or participate. It is simply a method of allowing the entrant to find out why they were denied admission. Whether they were denied or not is not the issue. That might make for another rule change or modification but for now, it just complicates the issue at hand. As it stands now, if you are denied admission and want to know why, you might or might not get an answer. This rule change simply gives some leverage to let you know why. It has nothing to do with whether you are allowed to enter or not. If there is a need for a rule change on that, then it needs to be proposed but I think it is getting a bit late to add it for this year.

Dave, this is not about whether you are allowed to compete or participate. It is simply a method of allowing the entrant to find out why they were denied admission. Whether they were denied or not is not the issue. That might make for another rule change or modification but for now, it just complicates the issue at hand. As it stands now, if you are denied admission and want to know why, you might or might not get an answer. This rule change simply gives some leverage to let you know why. It has nothing to do with whether you are allowed to enter or not. If there is a need for a rule change on that, then it needs to be proposed but I think it is getting a bit late to add it for this year.

Jerry-
I made just enough calls to show me the problem (s) aren't necessarily the entrant.

However, the reason for the direction I have gone is to protect those who travel to a sanctioned Concours from having their scores nullified.

And, if an entrant is denied entrance, and the appeal is in his favour, how does one "make it right", and fair?

Back up and look at it.

How would you feel about it if you were going after a championship and the JCNA nullified your score (and all the preparation time, travel time and expense) with no recourse for YOU?

Right now, we are talking about punishment for a club that without sound reason denies and entrant.

Then, how do we "make it right" for that entrant if the club is proven wrong?

Then, how do we "make it right" for everyone else?

"Tempest in a Teapot" is an understatement.

The BIG issue is, due to pending litigation, the actual facts of the issue canNOT be laid out in print.

So, how would you propose we make it "fair" to all?

Hi All, I really don't understand how this is being so mis interpreted. It has nothing to do with whether a entrant is allowed to participate in an event or not. There is no recourse on any club for not allowing anyone into the event. The only problem is that if the person that is denied entrance wants to know why and is not told. They did not get to participate. If they were allowed to participate, then they could not ask why they were not allowed to participate. What is so complicated about that? Someone goes to an event and is denied access for whatever reason (no, we are not going to list the possibilities) and asks why. He/she does not receive an answer. They still are not participating and go home. They can then request in writing a request for an answer. The by law comes into effect only if the club will not provide an answer. If your club tells the person why they are not allowed to participate, then you have nothing to worry about. In fact, I don't know but one or two cases where this would take effect as most who are denied access know why without asking.
This rule will not allow them to go back and get their car judged or get average points. The event is over and they did not participate. This is just to make sure they can find out why. Simple as that. Hopefully this makes it clear. If anyone has any way to word it any clearer, please do.

Hi All, I really don't understand how this is being so mis interpreted. It has nothing to do with whether a entrant is allowed to participate in an event or not. There is no recourse on any club for not allowing anyone into the event. The only problem is that if the person that is denied entrance wants to know why and is not told. They did not get to participate. If they were allowed to participate, then they could not ask why they were not allowed to participate. What is so complicated about that? Someone goes to an event and is denied access for whatever reason (no, we are not going to list the possibilities) and asks why. He/she does not receive an answer. They still are not participating and go home. They can then request in writing a request for an answer. The by law comes into effect only if the club will not provide an answer. If your club tells the person why they are not allowed to participate, then you have nothing to worry about. In fact, I don't know but one or two cases where this would take effect as most who are denied access know why without asking.
This rule will not allow them to go back and get their car judged or get average points. The event is over and they did not participate. This is just to make sure they can find out why. Simple as that. Hopefully this makes it clear. If anyone has any way to word it any clearer, please do.

Oh, one more advantage to making it part of the sanctioned-event rules rather than a By-Law change is that you can pass a By-Laws change with a majority for the following year or a supermajority for the current year. With By-Laws, it's always a supermajority.

It looks like we're going to have a fundamental disagreement on this. I personally think that if an entrant is a JCNA member in good standing (which would include no pending actions against them) that a club should face disciplinary action if they deny the person access to a sanctioned event. JCNA membership should confer some benefit to the members. I think stating that in all the rule books would end the matter. Clubs are required to follow the rules in order to hold sanctioned events, so from a legalistic standpoint, the issue is handled.

Currently, if a club does not follow the event rules, all scores from the event can be nullified. If the slalom course is not laid out per the instructions in the book and times are faster as a result, everyone who attended should lose their score. If a Chief Judge doesn't turn in scores in a reasonable amount of time, they might not be included in the final tally for the year. I don't know if it's ever happened, but nullifying scores after the fact already exists as the ultimate punishment for a club.

The difference here is that the rules might be applied properly for all the entrants who attended, so to deny all their results is overly harsh, which was my disagreement with the original proposal. The more I think about it, though, the more I would grant latitude to the BoD to determine an appropriate penalty.

Going back to a scenario I used earlier. Suppose a club denied an outsider entry to a concours because one of their members was on track to take continental honors? How does JCNA adjudicate that after the fact? Invalidating all the scores would a sledgehammer. Invalidating the scores in the class would be more targeted. Rather than trying to define the crime and the punishment, which I don't believe we do for other rule violations, Should we leave the penalty to the discretion to the BoD?

It might be denying a sanction the following year, but it might be throwing out all the year's scores of the person who denied the other person entry, or it might be expelling that member.

Why don't we just have the JCRC, Slalom Committee and Rally Committee add a rule to each of their rule books, that clubs can not deny JCNA members entry to JCNA-sanctioned events. If someone is denied entry, we already have a Protest Committee and an appeal procedure in place.

As Dave B noted, the person still wouldn't have been given the opportunity to compete, but as Dave G notes, if the person is belligerent or otherwise disruptive, wouldn't it be preferable to ban them in advance rather than having to kick them out on show day.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I think if something like this happens, as it has, JCNA should undertake an investigation of both the entrant and the club, because it will poison JCNA and the Jaguar hobby in the area where it occurs.

From the points brought forth by Dave's reply to Steve's proposal, I feel tha Dave may be "missing the point" -especially the last comment - "We should be judging Jugars, not entrants". From my interpretation of the many postings about this proposed new rule, it is the entrant that is potentially causing the problem - not the Jaguar. I suspect the Jaguar would be welcome to attend the Concours -if it could be accomplished without the particular entrant also attending.
It can also be a potential problem if the particular entrant behaves him/her-self at their own Club's events (or doesn't participate in such events) -thus remaining as a "member in good Standing"in their own Club, and then behaves as a H*****-A** (or uses the Concours to promote themselves and their business) at all of the other Concours they attend. The word gets out about such behavior and admission is denied at another Club's event. Can we allow him to park the Car on the Field (thus admitting the Jaguar) but then banning the entrant from the "Field"?? Probably not a workable solution to the problem -but i feel would solve the issue.
Personally speaking, Steve's proposal has been the best idea yet expressed -BUT I still wonder if this might be a "tempest-in-a-teapot" issue. I strongly suspect that there might be a far, far greater number of "rogue" entrants than "rogue" officials, and inherently to protect the rights of one will have an adverse effect on the other. And -since the "official" represents the Club, any adverse effect toward the official adversally affects the Club. The aim is to offer some rights to the "entrant" with the least negative effect on the Club - and Steve's proposal MAY possibly do this -by also allowing the other Club members to have a say (by vote) in the issue -upon the receipt of a warning letter from JCNA.
I see no logical way to solve the problem immediately (at the time of the event), other than by allowing admission but with the understanding with the entrant that the Club (thru its officers) has the inalienable right to immediataly evict the "rogue" entrant for any discourteous or untoward or banned action -with the understanding that their behavior may be reported to JCNA with the recommendation that they be banned from future JCNA -sanctioned similar events -until cleared by JCNA in the manner similar to that described by Steve - (as outlined above), but now with the impetus or burden of proof placed upon the entrant. If the Club is to be threatened by JCNA for its actions, also use the threat of "official" JCNA punishment (or banning) to control the actions of the "rogue" entrant.

Dick-
If you recall from the last thread on this, I mentioned (at least twice) that you would be "tweaking" this for years to get it right.

The reason for my post just above is to cover how points may or may not be awarded (and, one has to wonder, if we do award points, can we still deny a sanction?), and covers the "attended" count for National Judging requirements.

I am reasonably certain there are many more "gotchas" out there.

Dave

The issue then is, what if the club feels the person should be banned, they don't want that person (fore resons of their own) on the Concours proper.

Then, how do you let them on the field and let them be judged, possibly hauling their baggage with them?

An equitable soultion would be to have them:
A) banned as stated.
B) Appeal as stated.
C) If the banning is sustained, they are SOL.
D) if the appeal is granted, you cannot go back and perform a re-do, BUT you CAN:

E) Agree to an average score to be applied for the event missed due to being banned from the Concours, based solely upon your PREVIOUS Concours and your NEXT Concours.

This also prevents:

F) Someone who wants to "prove a point" by showing up, knowing they will be denied entrance, and making it hard to apply points, and they have no intention of attending any more events.

As long as:

G) The scores applied (if any) from said averaging shall not affect the standings of the Concours they were denied entry to, but rather shall apply Nationally.

(This keeps local First in First, Second in Second, etc., but will add into said individual's totals for National.)

And:

H) If this event was the third event to qualify for standings Nationally, the overturning of the ban automatically ads that Concours as an "attended" Concours for National Judging Totals purposes.

How's that for a work-around?

I don't know how the wording could be any clearer. If the entrant is denied entrance to the event, and if it is a concours, their car is not going to be judged. This rule does not change or effect this. It is just for the entrant to find out why they were denied entrance to the event. This by-law goes into effect only after the event and only if there is a problem. It does not effect the show or any of the scores achieved by any of the participants. It does not make the club take in anyone just because. There are people that the club does not want and this does not change their right to exert their right to exclude them. There is nothing in the provision about overturning the entrants right to enter the event, only the right to know why they were turned away. Please read the By-law carefully as to what it is intended for and what it effects. I think a lot of the discussion is over a mis-interpretation of what the by law is saying.

Steve -

I am apposed to this wording for the same reasons others have expressed. The basic problem, which ids still unsolved, is that if the host club denies a person entry and the action is subsequently overturned - by the Board, club, or prrotest committee - there is no equitable way to give that person another chance to compete. You cannot bring all the competing cars back to the concours site in identical conditions, with identical light and weather, and"rejudge the class.

The wording on the change presumes the entrant is in the wrong but what if the problem lies with the club official(s)? I would much prefer to see a provision to put the entrant on notice that even though his/her car will be judged the score will be submitted with a written affidavit from the club to have it dropped from judging. If the supervising body agrees and any subsequent appeals are denied then the result is the same. If the entrant prevails then the (rougue) officials in the club can be disciplined without harming any participants.

To answer your question I would replace the 3rd paragraph of your post with something based on the preceding paragraph. We should be judging Jaguars, not entrants.

As currently written I would vote against adoptation both a a Director and as an AGM delegate.