Bylaws Change: Art 2, Sec 6 Event Admission

Dave,

Exactly! We already have concours rules that prevent what the Cummins did, but no procedure to quickly discipline or expel members who violate the rules. I think we need a straightforward procedure whereby we can handle any violation of JCNA rules filed by a member against another member, a club against a member, or a member against a club.

I think it should be...

1. File a complaint within 30 days of the incident.
2. JCNA BoD reviews the complaint and gathers preliminary information if necessary and decides whether it will review the complaint or not within 30 days from receipt of the complaint.
3. If JCNA BoD decides to review, the complainant and the object of the complaint have 30 days to present evidence.
4. Once the evidence is received, the JCNA BoD has 30 days to decide on appropriate action.

If everyone stretches things to the max, it would be 90 days from receipt of the complaint, but if JCNA BoD handles it's parts of the process quickly, it could be as little as 40 days, if the parties take 30 days to submit evidence.

Regarding the Toronto situation, we'd need to add a rule to all the sanctioned events rule books that a club must allow JCNA members in good standing to participate in JCNA-sanctioned events. If they don't, the member can start at step 1.

I am amazed, the more questions I ask, the more stuff comes to light.

One would think after the Freeman incident, that all the groundwork would have been in place to deal simply and rapidly with Cummins.

This "proposal" may cover this one type of incident, but what if the next one is similar but not quite the same, and doesn't quite fall under the purview of the rule?

You brought up the issue of showing a car as your own, when it wasn't.

So, do we need a "rule" for that, plus a "rule" for denying entry at an event?

Maybe just one "rule" for violating the Aims and Goals of the JCNA.

Dave,

That's what I was getting at with that one paragraph that followed my proposal. It may open a can of worms so we'd have to be very specific, but rather than limiting this rule only to emtry to JCNA-sanctioned events, should we consider something broader that would allow a JCNA member or club to file a complaint against a another member or club?

Following up on the Cummins example, suppose they attended a concours and it was discovered a few days later that they had misrepresented a car as one that they owned? Given the original rule or the rule as I proposed it, JCNA could take no action until they were denied entry to a future sanctioned event. I think you're right on the money that it would be much better if we would allow a complaint to be filed at the time the transgression was discovered.

The only issue I see with the proposal would be narrowing the scope so that people weren't filing complaints because someone looked at them funny. It would have to be a specific violation of JCNA rules, or perhaps just JCNA-sanctioned event rules. (We'd have to review the By-Laws to determine that.) The complaint procedure could be something like what I laid out for the denial of entry. We'd still have to add the rule that a JCNA member in good standing can not be denied entry to a JCNA sanctioned event because that rule doesn't exist right now.

The benefit of our broadening the scope of the complaint procedure is that something as egregious as the Cummins' behavior could result in them being denied entry to sanctioned events as quickly as the JCNA BoD could meet to review the complaint, request information from both sides, and render a decision. If we give JCNA 30 days to accept the complaint, both sides 30 days present information and the BoD 30 days to decide, it would be at most, 90 days from receipt of the original complaint. However, if the parties and the BoD acted quickly it could be as little as a couple weeks. I'd further stipulate that at the time the JCNA BoD agrees to hear the complaint, the member is no longer "in good standing." That would allow clubs to deny them entry into sanctioned events.

So, in effect, a bad guy could be denied entry to sanctioned events within a few days of JCNA receiving a complaint.

If we broaden the complaint procedure to include violations of the By-Laws, then the complaint procedure should be part of the By-Laws. However, the rule that a member in good standing cannot be denied access to a JCNA-sanctioned event should be part of all the event rules.

Pretty straight forward and with a little tweaking I think we might have a rule that covers a bigger set of problems than just the situation in Toronto.

Dave,
As to someone scurring around to all the clubs to cause trouble, that is why both the club and the Entrant will submit, in writing, a letter stating their side of the issue.

If someone is intentionally causing trouble, the board would side with the club.

Steve

Now you did it.
Got me ponering even more.

Okay, one of the reasons I posted the "proposal" I did, is that you, we, all of us, need to think pro-actively, to ponder what we can do that would be all-encompassing for any unruly member acting not in the best interests of the JCNA.

Now, it was posted that it took a long time to figure out how to deal with the Cummins Incident.
Now we have this.
I don't know if I have seen the Cummins Amendment, so cannot address that, but:

Will this amendment only cover this eventuality, leaving the "culprit" free to roam the club and figure out another way to circumvent the rules?

Should we not be looking for an amendment to cover any and all eventualities where someone forsakes the Aims and Goals of the JCNA for his or her own?

Let's try and fix this, so next time something pops up, we don't have to scurry around trying to slap band-aids on the owie.

Just me thoughts....continuing.....

Dave

Apologies in advance for the length of this post. Everyone so far has made good points.

I think we can all agree on some basic principles, (or perhaps not ;->).

1. A club should not be able to deny a JCNA member in good standing entry to a sanctioned event without some justification. Imagine if you had just spent $50,000 restoring your Jaguar. It's done the night before the concours. You pull up to the registration desk as a day of show entry in a concours that permits DoS entries. They deny you entry and give no reason. They just tell you to turn around and head home. I don't think any of us would condone that kind of behavior no matter how seldom it might occur. However, right now, it's permitted and the entrant has no recourse.

2. The suggestion that a local club can make a disclaimer that x-days prior to an event an entry can be rejected (as I suggested) is probably unworkable. Cliff's concern that we'd need 30 days is probably valid. We're lucky to have 10% of our entrants registered that far in advance. My suggestion of a week in advance, even with a speedy resolution by the JCNA BoD, would mean that the sanction for the JCNA event could be pulled just days prior. How many people would realize that before they departed? They would show up at an event that they thought was sanctioned, only to find out it wasn't. That's almost as bad as pulling the sanction after the fact.

I withdraw that suggestion.

3. Pulling the sanction after the fact is unacceptible as it punishes all attendees, most of whom attended in good faith. The only affect this would have is to make it almost impossible for a club to deny any entry, no matter how justified, for fear of the consequences. As Dave and Art point out, it's tantamount to saying to clubs, "let everyone attend or else risk having your event invalidated," because no matter how good your reason behind denying someone entry, the decision is out of the local club's hands. Some clubs may choose not to hold sanctioned events for that reason.

So where does that leave us? I agree with Dick Maury's assent of one of my other earlier proposals that we deny future sanctions. OTOH, I disagree that the rule as originally proposed would not prevent clubs from denying access for good cause. We have no definition of "good cause." If what a local club thinks is good cause doesn't match what the BoD thinks is good cause, the local club has an invalidated event. JCNA is going to have a hard time explaining that to a dozen regional and JCNA competitors who spent a lot of money prepping cars and travelling to the event. The club's going to be put in a position of explaining why they denied the guy access and the JCNA will have to explain why they should have allowed the guy to participate. The whole thing will be aired on these forums and in the Jaguar Journal. I don't think that's what anyone wants.

So please permit me to present my version of this as a semi-formal proposal and hope it or some version of it gets an airing at the AGM.

------------------------------------

If a Club denies a JCNA member in good standing (aka Member) entry to a JCNA-sanctioned event (aka Event), the Member has the right to petition the Club hosting the Event for the reasons for that denial. This must occur within 30 days of the close of the Event. The Club must respond in writing to the Member, copying the JCNA Board of Directors, within 30 days of receipt of the petition. If the Club 1) does not respond or 2) does so unsatisfactorily, the Member has the right to appeal to the JCNA Board of Directors.

1) In the case of no response, JCNA will deny sanction to the same type of Event for as long as the Member remains a member in good standing until either

a) the Club responds or

b) the Member is invited or admitted to a future Event.

2) If the Member appeals because he or she feels the Club responded unsatisfactorily, the JCNA Board of Directors will hold a hearing within 30 days of receipt of the club response to review the contentions of the Club and the Member and attempt to resolve the disagreement. There are three possible outcomes.

a) An agreement is reached between the Member and the Club and the Club agrees to permit the Member who remains in good standing to attend the Event the following year.

b) If there is no agreement and the JCNA Board of Directors decides in favor of the Club, the Member may be denied entry into future Events until the Club chooses to invite the Member or accept his or her Event registration.

c) If the Member's appeal is upheld, the Club loses its sanction to hold the Event the following year and for every subsequent year for as long as the Member remains a member in good standing, until the Member is invited or admitted to a future Event.

If an appeal of this type comes before the JCNA Board of Directors, the Board should investigate both the Club and the Member to determine if either or both should be censured, put on probation, or have their affiliation with JCNA terminated, in accordance with procedures set forth elsewhere in the By-Laws.

-----------------------------------

While this procedure doesn't have the immediate impact of Steve K's proposal, I think it provides sufficient deterrent to frivolous, unsubstantiated decisions by local clubs. While it may seem a bit complex at first reading, I'm just trying to anticipate all situations that might arise -- the jilted member, the angry club, the vengeful member or club.

Note that I've added the clause "as long as the Member remains a member in good standing" in various places. The purpose is two-fold. This rule only applies to JCNA members in good standing and if a member terminates his or her membership in JCNA, not permitting them entry to a sanctioned event would become moot.

Step 1b is sort of the nolo contendere clause of the proposal. The club doesn't respond but invites the member to attend the next similar event and bygones are bygones. It's up to the member to choose to attend, but at that point, the club can apply for a sanction. It would be up to the sanctioning body to confirm that the Member was invited to a future event. You might ask why the invitation and not attendance is important for this and other sections of the proposal. Well, a vengeful member could prevent a club from ever holding the type event to which he or she was denied by never agreeing to attend.

Step 2a is optional, but I looked at it as a way to get the club and the member talking to each other. If the issue that caused the club to deny the member entry was a moment's anger or a misunderstanding, this gives the parties the opportunity to get together and work it out with the JCNA BoD acting as referee and with no penalty to either side. Call it the carrot.

The stick is everything that follows. In 2c, the club loses at least one year of the event and more, until they invite the member back. In 2b, if the BoD decides club was justified in denying the member entry, they're not welcome until the club decides they are welcome. I would expect that means contrition and petition from the member.

Last but not least, we have the really big stick. I give a nod to the good suggestions by Art and Dave. If there is an issue so caustic, that a club feels compelled to deny a member entry to a sanctioned event, there is something serious going on. JCNA needs to get to the bottom of it before lawyers start papering one another. Art and Dave suggest that we use existing parts of the By-Laws to determine if the club or the member or both are being PITAs so we can take action and I concur. One or more people involved in the Toronto fiasco should have been removed long ago. Any party working against the best interests of JCNA should be removed per the JCNA By-Laws.

As with anything involving lawyers, much of the effort is directed at preventative action. We're discussing a CYA that provides an appeal process so that we can show the courts, if it ever comes to that, that JCNA does everything possible to resolve issues at the JCNA level when they can't be resolved locally. Hopefully that avoids time consuming and expensive litigation for the local club, our insurers and JCNA, but if not, at the very least, in the event of a very bad decision at the local level, it somewhat insulates JCNA and all the other member clubs from the consequences of a bad local decision.

As I said in a previous post, I don't think this issue, limited as it is to only the denial of entry to a JCNA-sanctioned event rises to the level of a By-Laws change. Because it applies specifically to sanctioned events, it seems to me that it should more properly be placed in the JCNA slalom, rally, and concours rulebooks. Who reads the By-Laws? Only a handful of people, when pressed. OTOH, chief judges, rallymasters, and slalom organizers read their event rules. Publication there seems far more appropriate and would have the eyes of a much larger number of active JCNA members. Add a question to the judges test and all JCNA Certified Judges will be aware that they can't deny entry to a JCNA-sanctioned event without good cause.

However, the underlying reasoning for my solution to this specific situation begs for a more general one. Should we broaden a proposed appeal/complaint procedure and apply it to all aspects of the local club? For example, do we have a protocol whereby a member, who is aware of specific incidents in a club that are not in the best interests of the Jaguar hobby and JCNA, can file a complaint with JCNA? Just a thought.

Thanks, Steve W, for excluding me from the rabble ;-) however I think the differences among those who expressed an opinion are more style than substance. The ability to invalidate the results of a concours after the fact is draconian and I doubt will be accepted by the clubs or the membership at large. Denying future sanctions gives entrants confidence that concours they entered in good faith will count toward regional or continental rankings.

Again, apologies for going on so long. No one has ever accused me of not being thorough ... or verbose.

I do like Dick and Mark's suggestion of with holding next year's similar event. I do not like preventing the club from holding it indefinately. Hopefully within one year the problem could be resolved.
Steve

Steve-
Sometimes, in the medium of the internet, I come across wrong.
I am not telling you to pack up your proposal and take it home, necessarily.

Part of the issue with the by-laws is they appear to have been written decades ago (like, a vote of the membership on a member).
How do you do that today without revealing enough data to allow the membership to make an informed decision, and avoid litigation?

Placing someone on "probation" should prevent them from holding office.
So, if this at all involves someone holding office somewhere, "probation" status would remove them from a position that allows them to make decisions harmful to the JCNA.

Here we are, trying to increase (and retain) membership, and we have a loose cannon.

Pulling concours results, I personally don't believe, would help in the retention of members.

Might even make the JCNA the butt of many jokes in other marque clubs.

Just sayin'.

Dave

Dave,
Thanks for the proposal. You are at least getting closer. Closer to what you keep asking. Well, if we share the specifics, everyone will say, "Well, that is their problem, not ours. Don't change a thing."

The potential for this to occur again is certainly present.

There needs to be some Teeth in any proposal. Enough to make a club or club member be sure that any challenge against an Entrant is valid and not just an emotional reaction.

Your recommendation of:

1) In that publication issue a warning.
2) Place the person in a "not good standing" position.
3) Remove that person from JCNA Membership.

Your #1, publicising the problem is not a good idea because there may be litigation involved.
#2 Placing the person Not in Good Standing is certainly a possibility but not necessarly a solution to the immiediate problem.
#3 Removal of a member from JCNA has happened but that too took a very long time.

There needs to be enough of a potential penality for someone to challenge a potential Entrant that the board would certainly side with the club. Getting mad and into a yelling match is not good for anyone.

Steve

Dave,
Thanks for the proposal. You are at least getting closer. Closer to what you keep asking. Well, if we share the specifics, everyone will say, "Well, that is their problem, not ours. Don't change a thing."

The potential for this to occur again is certainly present.

There needs to be some Teeth in any proposal. Enough to make a club or club member be sure that any challenge against an Entrant is valid and not just an emotional reaction.

Your recommendation of:

1) In that publication issue a warning.
2) Place the person in a "not good standing" position.
3) Remove that person from JCNA Membership.

Your #1, publicising the problem is not a good idea because there may be litigation involved.
#2 Placing the person Not in Good Standing is certainly a possibility but not necessarly a solution to the immiediate problem.
#3 Removal of a member from JCNA has happened but that too took a very long time.

There needs to be enough of a potential penality for someone to challenge a potential Entrant that the board would certainly side with the club. Getting mad and into a yelling match is not good for anyone.

Steve

Apologies in advance for the length of this post. Everyone so far has made good points.

I think we can all agree on some basic principles, (or perhaps not ;->).

1. A club should not be able to deny a JCNA member in good standing entry to a sanctioned event without some justification. Imagine if you had just spent $50,000 restoring your Jaguar. It's done the night before the concours. You pull up to the registration desk as a day of show entry in a concours that permits DoS entries. They deny you entry and give no reason. They just tell you to turn around and head home. I don't think any of us would condone that kind of behavior no matter how seldom it might occur. However, right now, it's permitted and the entrant has no recourse.

2. The suggestion that a local club can make a disclaimer that x-days prior to an event an entry can be rejected (as I suggested) is probably unworkable. Cliff's concern that we'd need 30 days is probably valid. We're lucky to have 10% of our entrants registered that far in advance. My suggestion of a week in advance, even with a speedy resolution by the JCNA BoD, would mean that the sanction for the JCNA event could be pulled just days prior. How many people would realize that before they departed? They would show up at an event that they thought was sanctioned, only to find out it wasn't. That's almost as bad as pulling the sanction after the fact.

I withdraw that suggestion.

3. Pulling the sanction after the fact is unacceptible as it punishes all attendees, most of whom attended in good faith. The only affect this would have is to make it almost impossible for a club to deny any entry, no matter how justified, for fear of the consequences. As Dave and Art point out, it's tantamount to saying to clubs, "let everyone attend or else risk having your event invalidated," because no matter how good your reason behind denying someone entry, the decision is out of the local club's hands. Some clubs may choose not to hold sanctioned events for that reason.

So where does that leave us? I agree with Dick Maury's assent of one of my other earlier proposals that we deny future sanctions. OTOH, I disagree that the rule as originally proposed would not prevent clubs from denying access for good cause. We have no definition of "good cause." If what a local club thinks is good cause doesn't match what the BoD thinks is good cause, the local club has an invalidated event. JCNA is going to have a hard time explaining that to a dozen regional and JCNA competitors who spent a lot of money prepping cars and travelling to the event. The club's going to be put in a position of explaining why they denied the guy access and the JCNA will have to explain why they should have allowed the guy to participate. The whole thing will be aired on these forums and in the Jaguar Journal. I don't think that's what anyone wants.

So please permit me to present my version of this as a semi-formal proposal and hope it or some version of it gets an airing at the AGM.

------------------------------------

If a Club denies a JCNA member in good standing (aka Member) entry to a JCNA-sanctioned event (aka Event), the Member has the right to petition the Club hosting the Event for the reasons for that denial. This must occur within 30 days of the close of the Event. The Club must respond in writing to the Member, copying the JCNA Board of Directors, within 30 days of receipt of the petition. If the Club 1) does not respond or 2) does so unsatisfactorily, the Member has the right to appeal to the JCNA Board of Directors.

1) In the case of no response, JCNA will deny sanction to the same type of Event for as long as the Member remains a member in good standing until either

a) the Club responds or

b) the Member is invited or admitted to a future Event.

2) If the Member appeals because he or she feels the Club responded unsatisfactorily, the JCNA Board of Directors will hold a hearing within 30 days of receipt of the club response to review the contentions of the Club and the Member and attempt to resolve the disagreement. There are three possible outcomes.

a) An agreement is reached between the Member and the Club and the Club agrees to permit the Member who remains in good standing to attend the Event the following year.

b) If there is no agreement and the JCNA Board of Directors decides in favor of the Club, the Member may be denied entry into future Events until the Club chooses to invite the Member or accept his or her Event registration.

c) If the Member's appeal is upheld, the Club loses its sanction to hold the Event the following year and for every subsequent year for as long as the Member remains a member in good standing, until the Member is invited or admitted to a future Event.

If an appeal of this type comes before the JCNA Board of Directors, the Board should investigate both the Club and the Member to determine if either or both should be censured, put on probation, or have their affiliation with JCNA terminated, in accordance with procedures set forth elsewhere in the By-Laws.

-----------------------------------

While this procedure doesn't have the immediate impact of Steve K's proposal, I think it provides sufficient deterrent to frivolous, unsubstantiated decisions by local clubs. While it may seem a bit complex at first reading, I'm just trying to anticipate all situations that might arise -- the jilted member, the angry club, the vengeful member or club.

Note that I've added the clause "as long as the Member remains a member in good standing" in various places. The purpose is two-fold. This rule only applies to JCNA members in good standing and if a member terminates his or her membership in JCNA, not permitting them entry to a sanctioned event would become moot.

Step 1b is sort of the nolo contendere clause of the proposal. The club doesn't respond but invites the member to attend the next similar event and bygones are bygones. It's up to the member to choose to attend, but at that point, the club can apply for a sanction. It would be up to the sanctioning body to confirm that the Member was invited to a future event. You might ask why the invitation and not attendance is important for this and other sections of the proposal. Well, a vengeful member could prevent a club from ever holding the type event to which he or she was denied by never agreeing to attend.

Step 2a is optional, but I looked at it as a way to get the club and the member talking to each other. If the issue that caused the club to deny the member entry was a moment's anger or a misunderstanding, this gives the parties the opportunity to get together and work it out with the JCNA BoD acting as referee and with no penalty to either side. Call it the carrot.

The stick is everything that follows. In 2c, the club loses at least one year of the event and more, until they invite the member back. In 2b, if the BoD decides club was justified in denying the member entry, they're not welcome until the club decides they are welcome. I would expect that means contrition and petition from the member.

Last but not least, we have the really big stick. I give a nod to the good suggestions by Art and Dave. If there is an issue so caustic, that a club feels compelled to deny a member entry to a sanctioned event, there is something serious going on. JCNA needs to get to the bottom of it before lawyers start papering one another. Art and Dave suggest that we use existing parts of the By-Laws to determine if the club or the member or both are being PITAs so we can take action and I concur. One or more people involved in the Toronto fiasco should have been removed long ago. Any party working against the best interests of JCNA should be removed per the JCNA By-Laws.

As with anything involving lawyers, much of the effort is directed at preventative action. We're discussing a CYA that provides an appeal process so that we can show the courts, if it ever comes to that, that JCNA does everything possible to resolve issues at the JCNA level when they can't be resolved locally. Hopefully that avoids time consuming and expensive litigation for the local club, our insurers and JCNA, but if not, at the very least, in the event of a very bad decision at the local level, it somewhat insulates JCNA and all the other member clubs from the consequences of a bad local decision.

As I said in a previous post, I don't think this issue, limited as it is to only the denial of entry to a JCNA-sanctioned event rises to the level of a By-Laws change. Because it applies specifically to sanctioned events, it seems to me that it should more properly be placed in the JCNA slalom, rally, and concours rulebooks. Who reads the By-Laws? Only a handful of people, when pressed. OTOH, chief judges, rallymasters, and slalom organizers read their event rules. Publication there seems far more appropriate and would have the eyes of a much larger number of active JCNA members. Add a question to the judges test and all JCNA Certified Judges will be aware that they can't deny entry to a JCNA-sanctioned event without good cause.

However, the underlying reasoning for my solution to this specific situation begs for a more general one. Should we broaden a proposed appeal/complaint procedure and apply it to all aspects of the local club? For example, do we have a protocol whereby a member, who is aware of specific incidents in a club that are not in the best interests of the Jaguar hobby and JCNA, can file a complaint with JCNA? Just a thought.

Thanks, Steve W, for excluding me from the rabble ;-) however I think the differences among those who expressed an opinion are more style than substance. The ability to invalidate the results of a concours after the fact is draconian and I doubt will be accepted by the clubs or the membership at large. Denying future sanctions gives entrants confidence that concours they entered in good faith will count toward regional or continental rankings.

Again, apologies for going on so long. No one has ever accused me of not being thorough ... or verbose.

Dave,
Thanks for the proposal. You are at least getting closer. Closer to what you keep asking. Well, if we share the specifics, everyone will say, "Well, that is their problem, not ours. Don't change a thing."

The potential for this to occur again is certainly present.

There needs to be some Teeth in any proposal. Enough to make a club or club member be sure that any challenge against an Entrant is valid and not just an emotional reaction.

Your recommendation of:

1) In that publication issue a warning.
2) Place the person in a "not good standing" position.
3) Remove that person from JCNA Membership.

Your #1, publicising the problem is not a good idea because there may be litigation involved.
#2 Placing the person Not in Good Standing is certainly a possibility but not necessarly a solution to the immiediate problem.
#3 Removal of a member from JCNA has happened but that too took a very long time.

There needs to be enough of a potential penality for someone to challenge a potential Entrant that the board would certainly side with the club. Getting mad and into a yelling match is not good for anyone.

Steve

I thought that was the way it was, based upon what I have read.

The only "leverage" the JCNA had was to disallow a future sanction?

Aren't we now back to where it was before?

The real problem here is information.
Steve wants a "proposal", which I gave.
Unfortunately, he and you know what this is all about, others do not, and since the information, for litigation purposes, cannot be discussed, you will continue to get feedback that is negative from probably most folks.

If the story is presented, with no names, no club, but the facts...you know, a Joe Friday thing, "only the facts, m'am" then folks will see what you are trying to correct.

If it's deeper than a simple denial of entry, then we can talk about how to fix that.

Dave

Dave, it seems that the part about the scores being put on hold is the main issue. How about changing it as I proposed in an earlier post to keeping the club from getting another sanctioned event of the same style (ie: concours, rally, slalom) until it is cleared up. That way all of the scores go through without any problem and there is plenty of time to straighten things out. This keeps it out of the general membership and should be able to be settled. Just tweaking the by law proposal. It is not final until the AGM and even then, it has to be voted on to pass.

Steve-

Question:
How many folks have been denied access to a Club event in the history of the Club?

How many have appealed that decision to the JCNA?

If appeals made, how many were NOT justifiable?

Call for the question:

The original proposal, as written, penalized everybody, including those who travelled long distances from other clubs to participate (at some not small expense).

Birdshot approach.
You get everybody shot down in the range of your choke.

We need to be more "selective".

The reason I did not initially submit a proposal (actually, reasons, plural), was 1) I figured this is NOT a Legislative Agenda, we are simply discussing this proposal in an open forum, obtaining feedback to "tweak" the proposal before submission.

You wanted a Proposal, I gave you one.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, naming names probably won't fly.

However, how would one follow the by-laws and have a vote of the membership to remove a renegade member if the facts and names were not placed before the membership?

2) I needed to do some more checking, which I did.

My primary cause of resistance to the original proposal as explained hurts everyone.

If you feel this has to be done to limit JCNA exposure in a lawsuit, okay, do it.
Just limit the scope of the proposal to two years.

Then it can be re-addressed for effectiveness.

The counter proposal is:

"If a member in good standing of the JCNA has been denied admission to an event, and appeals that denial of admission to the JCNA National, the JCNA National shall:

Conduct an investigation of the facts in the matter, obtaining statements from those in attendance who witnessed the denial, and ask the person responsible for his statement.

If the JCNA determines that the denial was not justified, OR the person responsible for said denial refuses to respond, the JCNA shall, at its discretion, and based upon number of occurrences and number of prior actions towards this person by the JCNA:

Publish a written response, to be published in the monthly magazine AND the JCNA website.
1) In that publication issue a warning.
2) Place the person in a "not good standing" position.
3) Remove that person from JCNA Membership.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++=

There is your proposal.
Addresses the actual problem, and not the symptom.

Now, based upon the proposal as it stands, let us speculate, hypothetically:

Long time club member falls ill.
He knows it's bad.
He is able to attend two concours events, and places well.

The Doctor tells him that's it, he's got limited time.

He determines he shall win National Class Recognition.

So, he hooks the Escalade up to the trailer, drives 2500 miles one way to the third event, wins.

He knows he is going to do it, win National First in Class, and he has validated his scores by doing three meets, and this is the last one of the year.

He loads up, and drives the 2500 miles back home for the last time.

He is prepared to win....except, three weeks later, he finds out somebody appealed being barred from the meet, JCNA determined the ban was not justified, and all the scores from the Concours are invalidated.

How do you explain that to him?
How is that fair to the JCNA Membership as a whole?

BTW, I am surmising the pending litigation is really pushing this.....like, it might go away if something to prevent this from occurring again is passed?

Dave,
As there is still possible litigation resulting from this problem, I am not at liberity to disclose any details.

Regardless, I do not see a counter proposal from you.

The current concours rules state that a club has the right to deny entry to anyone. There are no provisions for the person being denied entry to ask why and get an answer.

What is your proposal besides Do Nothing.

Steve

Steve-
Addendum.
When I first read this (post #1), I was totally against it.
Then about halfway down the posts, I waffled.
That's when I started asking questions.

I think, personally, we need to address the problem, not the symptom.
And, I would support you on addressing the problem, or root cause, with an amendment written in such a way that it is useful not only in this case but in others that may come up in the future, and not designed to be a rule against one.

How's that for positive, eh?

First, this proposal, I don't think, just woke you up at 0300 one dark morning, and you said, "Gee! I think this would be a neat proposal!"

A little due diligence, and some phone calls, a little more of the story comes out.

You're trying to tell me that you are going to face down all the 100-point competitors if you nullify their standings in a competition event?

Next, has this problem or has this problem not existed for about six years?

Does this problem or does this problem not, really, involve one or two "officials"?

I am being VERY careful here, as the BoD does not seem to want to publish the data on this, but, if even 1/2 of what I found is true, the Club in question hasn't got a say in this, and hasn't for years.

If you want a real good similie, look at the Trailering Rule.
Nobody in the Clubs seems to have wanted it, but, there it is.

The real problem seems to be the lack of ability coupled with possible unwillingness of the BoD JCNA to deal with individuals who may or may not be acting in the best interests of the JCNA.

True?

I think, really think, that the BoD knows the full story, has investigated it, knows the who, what and why.

I think penalizing a Club for the actings oif possibly rogue individuals, when the BoD should be dealing with said individuals, is bogus.

How far will this progess?
Will we eventually have a clause in the By-Laws that if you lose points in a Concours, and appeal, and win, that all points given at the Concours in question are null and void, because the Club must be at fault?

Give us the whole story, Steve.

Is this problem the concerted action of all the members of one Club?
Or, is this problem the result of the actions and activities of one or two individuals?

Whoever this person is that was banned/barred/whatever, was this based upon a vote of the Membership, as required in the By-Laws, or a decision by one (or two) acting outside the By-Laws?

Dave,
You are concerned about penalizing the entire club for one club members actions. You do not want the club to have to make sure their members behave in a civil manor.

Please state what you would like to have happen when someone is prevented from attending a sanctioned event. Do not rambel on but present your bylaw proposal.

Steve Kennedy
JCNA President

Okay, I'll bite.

I understand that is was to give some teeth to the request......

Unfortunately, details aren't included in proposals.

Now, this proposal stands to penalize Clubs, and penalize 100-point competitors IF someone is thrown out, IF they apeal, and IF the Club doesn't meet the criteria set forth by the BoD for allowing said pitching.

Correct?

Is this proposal not a Band-Aid?
Does it not deal with the symptom and not the problem?

If there is a problem with ONE Club, and one (or more) sets of folks affected by the decisions of that Club, why are we not dealing with the real problem and not trying to apply a HUGE Band-Aid over it?

Will this proposal actually solve the problem?

Article III, Section 3.
Does that mean membership as in national, or membership as in local?
And, what if said vote is never held?

Does National step in?

Article II, Section 1.
What are the Aims and Goals of the Club?

If we have an issue with one (or more) members creating this problem, what authority does the BoD have to terminate said members?

Should we not be looking for a way to allow the BoD to terminate (or, place on "probation", which shall include the inability to hold any office Nationally or Locally whilst on said probation) any member performing actions not considered to be "in the best interests of the Club" on a continuing basis?

I am certainly not just peeing on your parade here.

I am looking for a proposal that is going to actually solve the problem.

I suppose for legal purposes the actual details of "the problem" won't be published here, correct?

The gist of the proposal was to give some teeth to get answers as to why someone was denied admission to a concours, slalom or rally. Most of the time, there is no question as to why so it is a non issue. Putting the standings on hold was only an idea. If that part of the proposal is the issue, then how about now allowing another sanctioned event of the same style for that club until a reason is presented. This is something that would not come up unless the club was not willing to answer the question. That way, everyones scores still are counted and if a concours, the club has a year to straighten it out. If privacy was the issue, then the person would most likely not bring up the question. The club would also be approached by the person denied entry first for an answer. Only if the club were non responsive would the person approach the JCNA Board for a resolution. And then if the club were non responsive would the Board have to take action. If there are provisions in the by laws now to handle this issue, then I am not aware of them. We had to modify the by laws to handle the Cummins situation in a better manner. It is a shame to keep working out problems and changing the bylaws to better deal with the problems. If there were not any problems, everything would be better but I don't see that happening. We just have to deal with them as they come up.

A little more checking....

Seems this puts the Cummins incident to shame.
This has apparently been going on, with the knowledge of the JCNA for six freaking years!

The sections of the by-laws quoted covers the ability of the JCNA to police this issue, and any amendment proposed and/or passed would give no more power to the JCNA to fix this issue than they already have, and apparently are unwilling to use.

Rumour has it the club in question does not even provide a roster to members, allegedly to prevent them communicating with each other.

True?

If so, they have violated ANOTHER part of the by-laws.

Geez, folks.

Article 2, Section 6 has less to do with this issue than the Articles and Sections quoted above.

"Membership rights and priviledges shall include the right to vote, hold elective ofice, participate in all activities of the Club, receive all periodicals and mailings....."

So, if this is the Aims and Goals of the Club, and one person is directing otherwise (as ststed), enfore the two parts quoted.

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

Art Dickenson
Pacific Jaguar Enthusiasts Group*

forum user since 2003-06-01

apparently this is all about the Toronto club, they have removed / threatened several members. law suits are in the process and the general membership are not really aware of what has happened to certain members who seem to have disappeared from the club.
A power struggle is going on and the membership / treasurer person is running the show. from behind closed doors to general membership . Apparently they have security to remove people who ask the wrong questions at the general meetings if necessary..............
Wow and we thought the locals here had a problem , non profit society rules here in BC state that each year all officers have to step down and allow another person to take each position....... But I guess if they ( the membership )do not know whats happening why would they .
Clubs operating on fear and prejudice should simply be removed, and clubs operating in a satisfactory manner should be left out of this mess in TO.
There are out there several groups in TO that would take the place, but not without JCNA doing the right thing, the power of good should win over the power of evil, just as the best car in class should win.... its about time this fiasco was resolved for the good guys and girls of Toronto................
That's my opinion for what it's worth............. and leave the other groups out of this mess.

Okay.
It was REALLY nice to have the "full story" up front.....which we now at least have some of.

Article II, Section 1. Bounce him, as he does not understand and agree with the Aims and Goals of the Club.

Article III, Section 3. Bounce him, for he has taken action counter to the best interest of the club.
How hard is this?

It's in the By-Laws, so why pass a NEW amendment to cover ONE person in ONE club and affect all of us?

You are reading this wrong.

Fix the amendment before submitting, or simply do your duty as elected officials and enforce the existing bylaws.

How hard is this again?

Dave

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

Steve Weinstein
Jaguar Touring Club*

forum user since 2002-11-13
Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am not a fan of the proposal to penalize a club for excluding someone from a sanctioned event by withdrawing the sanction after the fact. Effectively, you punish everyone who attended the event and had nothing to do with the action of the local club to exclude someone, member or not.

That said, there certainly are a lot of people who love to shoot off their mouths and criticize well intentioned efforts on the part of those who volunteer their time to try to run this club the best they can for the benefit of everyone, but never step up to the plate themselves to contribute anything. I am NOT talking about Mark Stevenson -- he is an asset to this club and his comments were well thought out and well reasoned, and done as constructive criticism in an effort to find a better way to do things.

But there are others, and you can figure out who you are, who simply rant and rave, make assinine accusations about the Board and its members, and add nothing of any meaning or substance to the discussion. It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and take pot-shots at others.

So, to those who have nothing better to do than criticize, I say, How about stepping up and volunteering to run this organization? You obviously think you can do a better job than the current Board, so let's see you do it. Oh, I can hear the 101 excuses starting already. Okay, so how about this: Make ONE, just ONE, meaningful suggestion how to deal with this problem, something that JCNA can implement to assure that every member has an equal right to participate in club events and not be arbitrarily excluded. Or better yet, make just ONE meaningful suggestion how to improve ANYTHING involving JCNA that can be implemented by the club.

The club needs more people like Mark Stevenson, who work for positive change to improve the club for the good of everyone. I'll wait patiently for some real suggestions of meaningful change from the "snipers" out there. But I suspect the silence will be defining, or they will simply now turn their venom on me, which will only prove my point.

Steve Weinstein, N.E.R.D.
1970 E-type FHC

I gave you some ideas.
Not sure you'll use any of them.
Seen this kind of stuff in other clubs.

Good way to stifle discussion, with that last post of yours.
I suppose that was the purpose of it, eh?

I've done my "officer in club" bit, not doing it any more.

I do intend, however, to make as certain as I can that when horse shXt ammendments or laws show up, I will speak out.
In fact, I will speak out.

So, if the state legislature (or DC) proposes some ridiculous law, we are supposed to quit our jobs and run for office to "fix" it?

By the time we get to office, the damage is long since done.

So, you don't like this amendment either.
Bully!

But, you feel compelled to dump on anyone who is vocal enough to speak out on it?

That's GOOD!

Why bother?
The decision has been made, it appears, like the "trailering" proposal, and it will go through.

Like I said earlier, it's going to take years of amendments, modification, exclusions and exceptions to get it even close to "right", and by that time the "offending" party will have jumped ship and gone off to the Studebaker Club.

Let me preface my remarks by saying that I am not a fan of the proposal to penalize a club for excluding someone from a sanctioned event by withdrawing the sanction after the fact. Effectively, you punish everyone who attended the event and had nothing to do with the action of the local club to exclude someone, member or not.

That said, there certainly are a lot of people who love to shoot off their mouths and criticize well intentioned efforts on the part of those who volunteer their time to try to run this club the best they can for the benefit of everyone, but never step up to the plate themselves to contribute anything. I am NOT talking about Mark Stevenson -- he is an asset to this club and his comments were well thought out and well reasoned, and done as constructive criticism in an effort to find a better way to do things.

But there are others, and you can figure out who you are, who simply rant and rave, make assinine accusations about the Board and its members, and add nothing of any meaning or substance to the discussion. It is so easy to sit on the sidelines and take pot-shots at others.

So, to those who have nothing better to do than criticize, I say, How about stepping up and volunteering to run this organization? You obviously think you can do a better job than the current Board, so let's see you do it. Oh, I can hear the 101 excuses starting already. Okay, so how about this: Make ONE, just ONE, meaningful suggestion how to deal with this problem, something that JCNA can implement to assure that every member has an equal right to participate in club events and not be arbitrarily excluded. Or better yet, make just ONE meaningful suggestion how to improve ANYTHING involving JCNA that can be implemented by the club.

The club needs more people like Mark Stevenson, who work for positive change to improve the club for the good of everyone. I'll wait patiently for some real suggestions of meaningful change from the "snipers" out there. But I suspect the silence will be defining, or they will simply now turn their venom on me, which will only prove my point.

Ah.
Makes all sorts of sense now.

"Security" tries to remove ME, well, not pretty.

Simple.
Remove the Charter from that group, let them start up again.
Or, remove the troublemaker at the National level.

Why are we penalizing every club based upon a problem the JCNA apparently knows about and is unwilling to step up to the plate on?

One you start this legal mumbo-jumbo, you will be for-freaking-ever adding corrections, exemptions, exceptions, clarifications.....it will need to be "amended" every stinking year.

How long did it take the JCNA to throw Cummins out again?
How long has this person in Toronto (eh) been at this?

Sounds like schoolkids.

"Because someone wrote on my blackboard, you will ALL stay after school".

Do I really want do deal with wimps who are unable or unwilling to fix the actual problem?

Or, to write an amendment to penalize every club based upon a known troublemaker?

Easy/Hard.
Smart/Stupid.
Take your pick.

apparently this is all about the Toronto club, they have removed / threatened several members. law suits are in the process and the general membership are not really aware of what has happened to certain members who seem to have disappeared from the club.
A power struggle is going on and the membership / treasurer person is running the show. from behind closed doors to general membership . Apparently they have security to remove people who ask the wrong questions at the general meetings if necessary..............
Wow and we thought the locals here had a problem , non profit society rules here in BC state that each year all officers have to step down and allow another person to take each position....... But I guess if they ( the membership )do not know whats happening why would they .
Clubs operating on fear and prejudice should simply be removed, and clubs operating in a satisfactory manner should be left out of this mess in TO.
There are out there several groups in TO that would take the place, but not without JCNA doing the right thing, the power of good should win over the power of evil, just as the best car in class should win.... its about time this fiasco was resolved for the good guys and girls of Toronto................
That's my opinion for what it's worth............. and leave the other groups out of this mess.

I believe there are several groups contemplating not having a concours sanctioned as such. Threats such as these may only infuriate and cause them concern enough to even withdraw from national events period. BOD should be carefull what they wish for.. too much legal stuff ruins everything. Leave it the way it is. the entrant relly knows why he is or may be refused anyway, if anything is to be ruledi would suggest the following.
proposal.......... " the entrant must be informed by the host group either verbally or in written form why thwy are being refused entry ".. This way JCNA BOD need not be involved,this is the only idea I would entertain.
One of our members was actually refused entry as they said he was too late getting there. actually the ferry to Vancouver Island was delayed or something. I did not see him complain to JCNA. and as my Dear Mother once said " it takes all kinds of people to make a world" I replied yes" Mam but why ?"

I have the same opinion about this proposal as I had about the trilering driven cars to a local event, and the delegates passed that... sorry I won't be there this should be interesting..cancel the whole show because someone was refused entry......... I believe it should be left to the local club to decide.. usually clubs want every entrant possible. there are however exceptions to the rule... at our groups 1st sanctioned event we had someone return his 2nd place trophy because he believed he should have been 1st.... that person then wrote his life story ( not literally ) and sent it to JCNA..They stated after qiuite some time that his complaint was felt to be wrong and tossed out his application.
I had actually seen his car during the show and noticed the very BLUED stainless header tubes, the judges had actually not marked his car down for that aspect and he still had a very hi point score. he missed 1st by around 3/10ths of a point ........ should have missed by a further 5 points if the judges had done their job right. That may have stalled his appeal in mid air, but surely you know your own car and know to keep your mouth shut and count your blessings............I am unsure as to whether or not our group would allow this person to enter again, but if this proposal goes thru we would be forced to........... I believe things should stay the way they are.................. Judges need to judge all they see and the best car should always win.......regardless what the entrants name is. ...

As mentioned, the more input the better on this. As of now, the entrant can ask as the Board can ask why but if the club does not want to tell, then they don't have to give a reason. There is nothing in the by laws to enforce action from the club. I really don't think that asking for a reason is unreasonable. Dave G had some good comments as does Mark S. The solution is out there, we just need to put it together. If it is not acceptable to the delegates at the AGM, then it will not be voted into the by laws. Ideas for solutions are welcome.

Mark,
It is more than just asking for an accounting. The threat of with holding a future sanction is not near as strong as suspending a currently sanctioned event pending on the outcome of the review of the circumstances.

All I am asking is that the Entrant has the right to ask, in writing, why he is being prevented from attending the event and asking the club to state, in writing, why the Entrant was not allowed to enter.

The Board would review both statements and make a decision. This will put more pressure on the club to make sure any prevention of an Entrant entering an event and will be looked at closely by the club members at hand and not just blown off.

Steve Kennedy

So, Dick, if all JCNA wants is an accounting, which I think is fair, why is there any mention of the nuclear option of revoking the sanction after the concours? Just leave it that the member can ask for an explanation and the club must reply. If they don't, you could deny a future sanction.

If the local club (state), decides, based upon information at their local disposal to act on a matter, what right does national (federal) have to second guess this?

Near as I can tell from reading this, ONE person has an issue.

Now, with ACLU lawyers involved, the last freaking thing I would EVER do is tell National WHY, IN PRINT.

THAT will end up getting us all sued.

(Ever hear of what happens if a previous employer tells the truth to a prospective employer on why said employee no longer works for him?
I used to hire and fire, and we knew what you NEVER said.
At least in print)

So, because of ONE, you want to pass a bylaw change to affect ALL?

Really?

You ever think, that just maybe, if a club (made up of many folks) decides one person is to be barred, the problem might just lay with the one and not the many?

crXp.

Now, pass a bylaw change to prevent the complainer from suing anybody if he or she lodges a formal complaint, and JCNA National asks the local club for a full explanation and gets the dirty truth.

Can't do that.

ACLU Lawyers made sure of that years ago.

You are walking into a morass.

The impetus for the by law change comes from the situation where a club denies admission to a JCNA member and will not tell him or the JCNA board why. Currently there is no provision for the JCNA to take any action. What this was aimed at is to give the Board some "teeth" to get an answer. Whether we like the answer or not is not so much the point as to whether there is an explanation presented. The provision is open for discussion and modifications and will be up for voting. If the delegates do not like it, it will not pass. Anyone with any suggestions as to solve this rather simple problem are welcome to post their thoughts. The board does want what is best for the club and it's members.

What we see here is actually quite typical of legislation.
Poorly thought out, impossible to implement fairly to all, unenforeceable, and guaranteed to result in litigation.

Hmmm. Sounds like a good way to keep people from participating until they know what the weather will be 30 days out.

I favor penalizing the miscreant/blowhard who disrupts the "good of the order," rather than the host club. Perhaps the liability statement on the entry form could be amended to include the fact that the entrants signature indicates compliance with any appeals process in the Book.

Okay, might work....IF you add that there is a non-adjustable cutoff time for JCNA members to register.
Let's say, 30 days?

That gives the process time to work.
If you fail to register before the 30 days, you cannot register, cannot participate, and cannot appeal.

I've had an off-lline conversation with Steve, who I'd like to thank for making a good faith attempt to address the problem. I made the point that nothing is solved by his proposal because the member still hasn't gotten to participate and can still take some action against JCNA whether the BoD agrees with the club's decision or not. The only practical effect is to ruin the event for everyone else who participated.

I've also received a private e-mail from the person who identified himself as most likely at the center of the controversy. Although I don't know the gory details, I know of the issue. I have corresponded with the individual in the past and have met at least one member of the club. Both seem reasonable, albeit intractable on the subject, to put it delicately. (I hope they both get a chuckle out of that.) I'm certain both feel justified in the actions they've taken to date.

I agree with Steve that, without some good reason, a club shouldn't be able to deny a JCNA member in good standing the ability to participate in an event. Since I'm the scenario guy, I could imagine a remotely possible situation where an overbearing, ultra-competitive club member chairing a local JCNA-sanctioned event would deny entry to his closest JCNA competitor. Before you all start harping on me, I agree, it's highly unlikely. The biggest issue I have with Steve's proposal is the ex post facto denial of an event's sanction if the JCNA BoD doesn't agree with the club's decision. I suspect that the reason the punishment is structured that way is that JCNA is a loose affiliation of clubs and JCNA has no control of what is decided at the local level. The only powers they wield over affiliate clubs is that of expulsion or invalidation of sanctioned-event results.

Since we don't want to invalidate a concours after the fact, the obvious solution is that to make the decision in advance. How could JCNA make that work? Well, I'd begin with the assumption that a JCNA member in good standing can not be denied entry to a JCNA-sanctioned event without good cause. So, as Dave suggested, if a club has an issue with a member, the club needs to take some action against the member. For example, If the individual has a hard time obeying the JCNA concours rules, but is otherwise an upstanding club member, then perhaps the club votes to deny that person entry into future concours. If the person is a general PITA (no reference to the current situation, BTW), then they vote him or her off the island, as in out of the club and out of all events held by the club.

Now here's where it may get cumbersome or may not be doable because of the decentralized nature of JCNA. My next proposed step would be an appeal process to JCNA. I'm going to assume that JCNA can not force an affiliate club to accept a member, nor would I want them to. However, if JCNA has the power to invalidate a sanctioned event after the fact because someone was not permitted entry, then I would think they have the power to order a club, in advance, to allow a person to enter, under threat of having the event invalidated.

To restate that, a club has the ability to accept or reject membership or participation of anyone within the bounds of law of the jurisdiction in which they operate. However, I would maintain that JCNA has the ultimate authority over JCNA-sanctioned events through the power of invalidating the results.

What needs to happen, IMHO, is that if the club suspects that a troublesome member is considering entry into one of their JCNA-sanctioned events, the club needs to first decide to deny the JCNA member entry and inform that member in a timely manner. The member then has the option to appeal the club's decision to the JCNA BoD or some other panel such as the Protest Committee, assigned to adjudicate such matters. JCNA would then render a decision based on the information presented. If JCNA concluded that the member should be allowed to participate, JCNA could threaten to pull the sanction, IN ADVANCE, if the member was denied entry. This would require quick action from all involved, but that's what conference calls were made for.

In practical application, here's how it would work,

Scenario 1. A JCNA member from the local club or from outside is a big PITA at this year's concours. The local club doesn't want him back. Shortly after the concours, they take action as described above, to bar him from returning. They inform him of their decision. He has the option to appeal to JCNA, but if he chooses not to, the club can reject his entry next year and every year going forward until they choose to lift the ban. Or the PITA can appeal and see if JCNA forces the club to allow him to enter. This formal procedure would be pretty humiliating, so I would expect that it would be a huge deterrant to people being PITAs at sanctioned events. Imagine if an event official had to warn you that if you didn't pipe down, the club would take action to prevent you from returning.

Scenario 2. (I expect this parallels the situation JCNA is grappling with.) You suspect that a troublesome (again no reflection on any of the parties involved) member is considering entering one of your club's sanctioned events. The club can either contact the member to determine his intentions or take pre-emptive action. From here it follows scenario #1.

Scenario 3. A PITA registers for a JCNA-sanctioned event day-of-show or so close before the event that there is not enough time to resolve the issue. There would be a couple ways to handle this. Clubs could include a disclaimer on their entry form that after a certain date, say a week out, entry cannot be guaranteed. In the worst case, if they have to allow the member to participate and the member causes problems, they can pass that information on to JCNA and perhaps have the person excluded in the future.

Please don't get wrapped up in the minutiae of scenarios. I only present them as examples of how this proposal could work.

As is typical for me, this is one of my long-winded ways of suggesting an appeal procedure that JCNA can set up so that clubs can exclude JCNA members from their JCNA-sanctioned events for good cause, yet allow the member some recourse if he or she feels the rejection is not warranted. The good thing is that this occurs in advance of the event, not afterward.

Non-JCNA members do not have any protections provided by in this proposal. Their participation in a JCNA-sanctioned event is at the whim of the organizing club.

JCNA has had sanctioned events since it's inception. They have to number in the thousands by now. We have had one issue. If the procedure is a little cumbersome it shouldn't be a problem because we'll probably have a few thousand more sanctioned events before the issue arises again.

One additional suggestion I'd make, is that rather than including this in the By-Laws where it seems somewhat misplaced, that the appeal procedure verbiage be included within each of the sanctioned events' rule books.

Hopefully it all makes sense.

That's what this is about....public discourse on the subject BEFORE the ACLU lawyers have their way.

Remember what Spock said....the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.

What we need to do is make sure the local chapter is allowed to do what it needs to do, and that some national BoD doesn't take away any possibility of policing the concours (as it were) by local clubs, all in the best interests of the JCNA.

If they penalize the club based upon the complaint filed by someone barred, and the BoD was not present, is that fair?
Does the BoD have any real idea what transpired on the local concours?

Or, will it all come down to legal wrangling, and only specific items of fact will be admitted?

If the local organization no longer has the freedom to bar whomever they desire to bar, without fear of JCNA BoD reprisals, what's the point of local chapters?

Maybe we should do away with local chapters, and let the National BoD come out and plan, man, judge, and conduct all concours events.

Mark,
We'll miss you, but I appreciate your remarks. I wasn't sure if I was reading that proposal correctly and planned to ask about it myself.

Dave,
How about protecting the rights of the local club? i'm not sure I follow you when you bounce the "blowhard" from another club from your concours. I can imagine a case where someone objects to the judgment of one of the concours judges and badgers the local crew in an effort to regain a tenth of a point in lieu of filing a protest. The judges are volunteers, the CJ is a volunteer and the concours chair is a volunteer - none of whom want to be called after 9 PM 2 days later to debate the issue.

The blowhards who fail to follow the book can make life unpleasant for the volunteers and within 2 years you have trouble finding volunteers to man (and woman) a concours. How tempting it is to reject applications from those who have created their own reputation as a blowhard for the sake of peace in the local club.

This isn't a theoretical discussion. Most who read the Concours Forum have been there and occasionally ask themselves why they agreed to be a judge when the blowhard shows up. In fairness, sometimes a judge makes a mistake (experience talking, now) and would be willing to address the issue, but Mr. Blowhard makes him feel like shXt while trying to prove his point. That's not applying the spirit that the book is trying to promote.

Perhaps an answer can be found in soccer. A CJ could give a "Yellow Card" to Mr. Blowhard if he acts a manner "unbecoming a gentleman," before, during or after a show. Two Yellows in a year bans the blowhard from all concours the following year. An egregious action that reflects poorly on the club or the Club gets you a Red Card that, upon concurrence of the BOD, bans you from concours for the rest of that year and the following year. The club would have to explain the egregious action, the blowhard could appeal, the innocent are left to wonder if the BOD will ever react. (Much as everyone does now, right? I wish you could see the smile on my face!)

Part of the challenge of doing something to forestall Mr. Blowhard is that no one, like a club Pres or CJ wants to be the bearer of bad news. This is about having fun and I fear that 1 blowhard is all it takes to ruin a club (or a neighboring club).

Points/counterpoints welcome.

How about something protecting the club?
Pretty scary scenarios have been laid out here.

How about "acting in good faith"?

If the club doesn't like someone, so what?
If the person has shown to be:
Belligerant.
Not willing to follow directions (as in, oh, following judges around pointing out flaws in competitor's cars).
Too vocal in his or her dislike of ACLU lawyers.

The problem is, let's say, pre-meet, you decide locally who is going to create problems (based upon past performance).
And, you place them in a category of "not in good standing".
That takes care of the local yokels.

Now, you get some blowhard from another cclub show up, someone knows he (or she) is a problem, and you don't want any of their shXt on your parade.

So, acting in "good faith" for the good of the JCNA you bounce them.
Said blowhard appeals to the ACLU lawyers, you get your standings nullified.

Good way to have zero members two years from now.

What about Cummins?

There is a high profile case.

Fairly easy to figure that one out.

We haven't had any problems so far, right?

What are you planning?

OK, no body likes my proposal. I will let you guys come up with a proposal that will give the entrant some recourse in the following scenerio.

You come to the concours the day of the event, you are willing to pay any late fees. You are told, for no apparent reason, that you are not allowed to enter the concours. You ask why and are not given an reason.

Do you want any recourse? Or would you be happy just knowing you were denied entry and be willing to leave it at that.

My proposal says the Entrant who is denied entry can submit a letter to the board asking for a written reason from the club that hosted the event. The club would have the right to respond with their reason for denying entry.

If the club says, well, we just don't like him, the board will have the right to revoke the sanctioning of that event.

If the club were to say they denied entry because of various factual reasons questioning the Entrant's motivations, such as, the entrant uses the earned scores to promote his busiess, then the board would side with the club's denying entry and the sanctioned event would stand.

And NO, I do not plan to list hundreds of possible scenerios to cover this circumstance.

You guys come up with a proposal that will protect the Entrant, that may well by you some day.

Steve Kennedy
JCNA President

Having read the Proposed 2010 By-law Change of Article II regarding ÔÇ£denial of entry to a sanctioned eventÔÇØ, I would agree entirely with the comments of Mark Stephenson that this is a very bad and incomplete proposal -and could very adversely effect the future participation of Entrants to a Concours. How many of us would risk the expenditure of time, effort, & money to attend a Concours with the chance (no matter how small or great) that our efforts and rewards will be declared ÔÇ£null & voidÔÇØ thru no faults of our own, but by a decision by the BoD of the JCNA ÔÇô(and in which we have had no say or input).
It would appear to me that -from the ÔÇ£ReasonÔÇØ given for the need of this Proposal- it was made by a lawyer from the ACLU ÔÇôie- in order to protect the hypothetical Rights of ONE individual, you must violate the Rights of everyone else.
The only way this proposal could possibly work would be if the JCNA BoD publishes a detailed list of ALL possible circumstances for which an Entrant can be denied (or NOT denied). And then their decision & vote on the Participant would have to be very timely, (or the finalization of a particular ConcoursÔÇÖ results would not occur until the following Concours year). And the timeliness of action of the JCNA BoD in matters such as this is not notable ÔÇôas would appear to be indicated by the case of the Mike & Cheryl Cummins ÔÇ£affairÔÇØ ÔÇô(as apparent to those of you who have followed this saga in the ÔÇ£E-Type ForumsÔÇØ)
I would therefore urge ALL Delegates to the 2010 AGM to vote AGAINST this Proposal as currently written!!

Jerry Ellison - CJC

Art,

I'm not saying he tried to enter again. That would take some huevos. But what if he did? Could our club be absolutely certain the JCNA BoD would side with us? If it's with the entrant, all the scores of all the cars at our concours would be voided. Explain that to someone who drove 8 hours to get here or spent a few C-notes getting their car detailed.

I hope the AGM votes down this ill-conceived proposal.

It is amazing what some people try and pull off, if it happened here I would insist he pays last years fee and the proposed one in cash , or he could take his ball or balls ( if he had two cars ) elsewhere and play.
Facta non Verba ..(" Deeds not Words" )