Nomination and Election of Conference President


Well-known member
OK, here's what I think is being proposed:

  • Each club submits one nominee for president to the Steward, through their Contest Board Reps.
  • The list of nominees is compiled by the Steward and sent back to the clubs (via the Contest Board Reps). Each club votes at their respective rules change meetings
  • At the Contest Board meeting, the CB reps report their clubs' votes, and each club's vote is weighted by that club's member count. The nominee with the most votes is submitted to the E-board as a nominee.

It would be great to see the 50-word explanation of the intent of this rule change. The new process submits a nominee to the E-board. The E-board seems still to be left with the responsibility of selection of the next Prez. Is the intent to provide a formal mechanism for the drivers to express their wishes to the E-board?

I'm unclear about Section F, which suggests that a Conference official (the points keeper for example) can submit a name for nomination through the Steward. Are such nominations included in the list sent back to the clubs for voting, or are they presented to the E-board alongside the single nominee selected by the drivers through the proposed process?

Again, a hint as to the intent of the proposed change would help a lot.
yeah, I'm not 100% clear on this one either, Bob-

it looks, on the surface, like IRDC and Cascade together make up the majority,
no matter how few or how many members actually vote.

And there's a lot of 'mechanism' involved...

Toby and I are both "insiders" as IRDC officers and I agree with him - the reason for this potential rules change is not clear. Usually a rule change comes about as a response to a percieved problem that someone is suggesting a fix for. Could the author of this give us a quick rundown on intent?


(I have gotten a great education recently from a lot of guys with decades of experience, wise leadership, and contribution to the members of this organization. I'm lucky enough to have the encyclopedic knowledge of the inner workings of Conference from members like Dick Boggs and Dennis Peters (to name just a couple!) to educate me any time I'm in doubt. Frankly, I think I would have been reluctant to take on the responsibility of being an IRDC officer if it weren't for the incredible resources available to me from people in the leadership of this club. All you have to do is look at the the list of people who attend IRDC meetings and you will see a who's who of folks responsible for the success of roadracing in the Northwest. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank them publicly!)
I think...

That what is being proposed is a direct vote from the licensed drivers that are used as weight in all other things policy wise changing. This particular policy change may affect other things that are not evident in the policy that is up for the "change" as presented by TC's CBRep.

This, as opposed to the EBReps, with that same member/driver weight voting on a list of nominees that is created otherwise, and perhaps not held to the scrutiny of the general driver/membership.

Otherwise, someone may be nominated, and elected before anybody has any idea that they've even heard of them. :eek: Of course that would never happen, but...

just sayin'.
Otherwise, someone may be nominated, and elected before anybody has any idea that they've even heard of them. :eek: Of course that would never happen, but...

just sayin'.

That seems to be the flavor of the proposal, but as I read it, it doesn't accomplish that goal. Perhaps I'm missing something, but the proposal says that final product is a nomination submitted to the E-board. So at the end of the day the proposed changes allow the drivers to submit one nominee. But per Section F there may be others (that no one has ever heard of). So what does this change really accomplish?
It boils down to the authoring club reps putting their concepts out here for discussion. Most stuff doesn't get a second look by other clubs because of the lack of this communication. Then nobody understands, wants to change, or maybe they just don't like the authors and vote good, and positive changes down.

If they (the authoring club) are not interested enough to jump in there, then the whole thing becomes as irrelevant as the word "certification", where there is no documentation to support it.

But, just for that discussion's sake, think about a line item with each of the eligible (define that, as you like) nominees to be included on the Regulation change list after it has been assembled and distributed by the current ICSCC Steward. Then each club votes for their favorite nominee at the same time that they vote for the other changes, and it's submitted to the EB at the Fall Meeting.

I'm not sure if the way that this rule change has been submitted by TC accomplished that end either, but the concept is a good one for total transparency, and it would be consistent with the whole "driver" controlled rule/reg change policies as they are in use today.
So this would act as an advisory vote for the E-Board with the intention of revealing the will of the membership and how it potentially either agrees or conflicts with their E-Board representative's vote?

Interesting concept I suppose, although I can assure you that IRDC's E-Board rep has given sterling service in this regard. If there is an important E-Board decision to be made he has always returned and discussed it with the Club Board of Directors and wherever practical we try to get a clear picture of the will of the members of IRDC at the monthly General Meetings. The main difficulty remains that a very small percentage of the membership actually shows up and votes at General Meetings and most of those are in somewhat regular communication with members of the board.

If the perception is that decisions are made at any level of Conference that bypass the Democratic process and are made unilaterally by self serving officers then we need to change that immediately whether it is true or just perception.

Let me step up on my soapbox here for a second - were it not for some really dedicated people who volunteer to step up and do all the things it takes to operate clubs and put on races, then people would have a lot more time to complain about things because they wouldn't need to prep racecars. There wouldn't be anywhere to use them.

There are several steps to becoming active in one of our member clubs. Showing up for any club's monthly General Meeting will immediately separate you from about ninety percent of the registered licensed racing drivers in ICSCC. Yes, you read that correctly - the important things we need voted on by the membership at large like officers and rules changes are decided by maybe 10% of the membership at best. If you don't like the decisions your officers are making on your behalf, then get your behind to a meeting every now and then and elect someone who represents your will!

Second step is if you start showing up at meetings regularly and are trying to make a constructive difference in your club with your presence, you will almost certainly be tapped on the shoulder and asked to join in helping the club. When I look around our meetings I see a bunch of guys who have selflessly volunteered to make racing possible in the Northwest - many for decades! At some point new blood is absolutely vital. We can't just ask the same guys to serve until they drop, even though most of them would do whatever was required to make sure Conference not only survives but thrives.

The third step typically happens when your fellow racers see you trying to help the club and understand that you recognize how valuable and fragile out Conference family really is. They ask you to help protect the club and insure it's future by accepting responsibility for leadership. For any of you who have misconceptions, it is easier to just worry about racing your car than to worry about both that AND protecting the legacy of racing handed down to us from decades of passionate and dedicated people who made this possible for us today. I am proud that most of the people that I am closest to in racing are also people who have gone the extra mile to invest their time and effort into making sure that Conference continues to be the best possible place to race in the Pacific Northwest.

The quote "in a democracy, the people get the government they deserve" is one of my favorites. If you think you deserve better, then get out and shape the organization to better fit your needs.
Last edited:
I have every confidence that the EBRep of each member club votes the will of his/her constituency.

The concept that I am discussing might create an enhanced element of competition for the office. Thus moving it further from those board-room decisions, and spreading it out amongst the other "certified" voters of policy-like stuff.

Very nice review of the "Three Step" program, Rick. One might suppose that the Fourth Step is over stepping. Indeed, I should require certification to comment further than a volunteer might be aloud, in regard to the morassively complex inner workings of the Conference.
Rule change proposal #1 is listed as being in the section "How the Conference works", which according to my rule book is the exclusively the responsibility of the E Board. Does that make that particular rule change out of order?

As for the rest of the proposal, its the job of the Board of Directors of any company to select the company officers. This seems comparible to every employee in every Boeing plant being able to vote and select one nominee for the corporate president.

The proposal doesn't prevent other E Board from approaching other nominees either, so I'm puzzled as to the intent of this proposal.
And even so, it appears on the "Change" list. Go figure.

I guess the first change necessary, to create that proposed change, would be to change that aspect of the regulation. And that would take a vote of the EBoD, would it not?

Certainly a paradox has been created here. I certainly hope that it won't rip the fabric of our own time-space continuum.
If I am following the intent of the rule correctly (and I may not) the Clubs with the greatest number of licensed drivers would elect the President at the rule change meeting. The wording is a little muddled with regard to members or drivers counting but it comes clear that it is licensed drivers that count in paragraph E. Of course IRDC and Cascade have the greatest number of licensed drivers. If they got their collective Clubs together they would elect the President. The other associate, member/clubs, drivers could go pound sand. So much for Democracy. In the present process you have equal representation through your member Club EBoard representatives (page 4 of the P&P)to exercise the wishes of their membership in electing the President.

Bear in mind that at IRDC rule change meetings we have maybe 15-20% of the licensed IRDC drivers voting on rule changesand in theproposal the President. One of my favorite sayings is that, "Those that vote, vote for those that don't." If you don't like the way things work in your club, the way the Contest Board vote goes on rules or the way the EBoard rep votes for President, attend the meetings and get involved. This year and in years past when it was time to elect officers in IRDC there was only one volunteer for each position. You would be really surprised what you will learn by just attending the meetings. We are always looking for people to help at the Club and ICSCC level in any small way or even a big way.

I guess this would give drivers of Associate clubs some voice in the process but that raise a real sore point with me. If we all belonged to Associate clubs there would be no races. Only member clubs put on races. Our member clubs (all 5 of them) take on a huge responsibility of volunteer time and a huge financial responsibility. The member clubs have earned the right to have a voice in the way Conference is run and in the election of the President through their Eboard representatives who vote in accordance with their membership's wishes. The issue of associate clubs and their rights is probably another thread for discussion at another time and certainly worthy of discussion.

I guess the other fascinating thing about this proposal is the thought that there is a long line of experienced and willing people in each club waiting to volunteer their time, which usually means money, and energy to be President of Conference. If you had no experienc in how Conference works to borrow a phrase, "You would be lost like a ball in high weeds." I would predict some very entertaining chaos if this were to pass and as Ken say we may have a "rip in the fabric of our time-space continuum."
Right on point as usual Mr. B. The job as Conference prez is one that you have to sneak up on after many years of toiling in the trenches, and even then it's always a suprise at how much work is involved when you get there.
Administrative duties may be a huge bore at times, (or all the time in my world), but someone has to do it, and it's not an easy, or enviable task.
Our Presidents have always been carefully chosen, except that one time, but we won't go there. Actually it was an attempt at a minor coup, but thankfully it was thwarted.

If the drivers vote, and pass those votes to the contest board, who pass them on to the E-board, then ultimately the result is the same. Since the board votes are not publicly posted, any E-board rep can vary his vote from the clubs preference and nobody will know anyway. So it's still a vote of 5 people in the end.

Is it time for more transperency at the top tier of our organization? Just asking.
Dick, I think you took a different turn.

Each club's certified voters (license being the certification) and select only one of the names on the list of nominees as presented with all of the other regulation change submissions. The name with the most votes in that club is given to the EBRep. Then that single name is taken to the EBoD at the Fall Meeting with only the driver/member weight of that one club's vote.

Were it acceptable to view that ICSCC is less a meager-profit corporation on paper, and more of a congomeration/coalition/co-op, then it's not a far stretch to let the EBoD facilitator (or President) be selected by that hardy, and proud licensed driver demographic. No loss of pride there, eh?

Nothing was said nor otherwise insinuated that any of the general membership would have any direct affect on that vote, Dick. So don't start that. The Lords of the Cosmic Jest can only know what evils that would evoke from the depths of the commoners. They will always, as in past, just suck it up, and leave their fates to the omnipotent "Q" of ICSCC.
Last edited:
I suppose it's like anything else in business or politics Randy, some BOD reps are more open and willing to chat than others. I think the current group of guys are doing a good job, and I can safely say that our club rep, (IRDC) is more than happy to share, unless it's an issue that is still on the table and not yet ready for prime time.
I believe it's true that most Conference members don't really know what goes on with the E-board, and find their meetings a bit of a mystery. More members should sit in on the November meetings and see what makes this organization tick. They may not realize it, but guests are welcome. I loved my 3 years on the board, and it really felt good to represent the drivers of my club and make policy decisions that helped us through the infancy of AMB, plus solving a few other issues that were a bit volatile in those days.
The workings of Conference are akin to the novice program, being that some folks find the program hard and confusing and it takes them awhile to figure it out. A lot of members see headquarters and the E-board as out there somewhere, and equally confusing. It could perhaps be a bit more user friendly, but I feel that most people are content to race and leave the inner workings to those who enjoy those jobs.
So I agree that anyone who has a question or wants answers to a specific issue should simply ask.
This is why I asked at the Spring Meeting (and will ask again in November) about the feasibility of publishing the meeting notes from those two events (at least).
IRDC is very open about how our E-board rep votes. Anyone who wants to know just has to be interested enough to ask. Before anyone takes the time to vilify E-board reps, remember they are our ambassadors to ICSCC. They don't just randomly decide on their own to cast rogue votes or take radical positions. Each club has a membership that has the power to elect their member club's board of directors so every officer involved in Conference is serving either directly or indirectly by the mandate of the electorate.

I am also completely in favor of transparency, although I kind of like that members have to contact the board if they feel strongly about an issue - it might be the only time we actually get to talk to them since so few come to meetings. And if we get to talk to them it is only a small amount of plotting and skullduggery until we dupe them into taking jobs as officers thereby freeing ourselves from the oppressive chains of servitude and derision (muuuhahahahahah!)
Why is everybody getting down on the EBReps? Who said anything about the EBReps? What's all this talk about EBReps?

How long does the EBRep get to ponder over the list of nominees before they are asked the question in the BMtg?

A month, a week, day of the show?

Anyway, no body said anything that should even remotely be considered any lack of confidence in the people that represent their clubs at the ICSCC Board level.

Did you?