Ridecamp: RE: [RC] Motion #4

The recent discussions, at least in the rules committee, were centered
around the need to insure that a "national perspective" was maintained in
the scheduling of the special events on the ride calendar.

There was very little, if any, comment related to the need to have the Board
maintain a watchful eye over the events during the first two years. It was
really a matter of a squeeze on the calendar. Possibly the historical
perspective has been lost?

> Bob Morris Writes:
> Why would historic rides require a change in sanctioning
> when they have been "proven". The reason the restraints were
> in place for special sanctioning was to make sure the rides
> "performed" as per AERC expectations.

as to the question of existing 3 day events being required to special
sanction - I don't think the Ride Managers Committee completely resolved the
issue, but Connie would know. From the rules committee, we pointed out that
existing 3 day events would need to be special sanctioned and that the
mechanism (either grandfathering or case-by-case or more than two years
etc.) should be resolved.

But clearly, if this motion were to be approved, all existing >2 day events
would require special sanctioning.

Its likely that most of the rides on Anne's list would be approved during
the special sanctioning process but not certain. Some of the rides are less
than 3 years old and would be requiring BoD approval as well.

It would be easy and reasonable to get the sanctioning people to indicate if
they would approve-or-disapprove each of the existing 3 day events before
the Board actually votes.

johnt




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
 Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
 Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
 Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=