AHRMA’s Board of Trustees met on July 17 and discussed/voted on rules proposals submitted for the 2018 season. A summary of those proposals and the preliminary voting record of the Trustees can be viewed here. Please keep in mind that those decisions are not final. Members are encouraged to contact Trustees with feedback on those decisions during the next two months. Comments posted here are not considered official feedback; all input to the Trustees must be submitted to the National Office. The final vote on ’18 rules will take place at the October 9 Board meeting in Alabama.
To view the full Novice Historic Production/Clubman 350 roadrace proposal from Chris Jackson, Jim Korn and Cindy McLean, please click here.
To view the full Historic Production Cafe roadrace proposal from Bill Howard, please click here.
Our board of directors put in many hours of careful consideration to all rules proposals. We should thank them for what all too often is a thankless task. On behalf of Vintage Racing Motorcycles, our employees, and our sponsored riders, “Thank you, for all you do for our club.”
I just do not understand how almost an entire class/member base is wanting an intermediate class between Historic Production and Sportsman classes, as evidence of both the Historic Production/Clubman proposal and the Historic Production Cafe Class submitted, but not a single trustee voted in favor. Thanks!
I assume that both BEARS SIDECAR proposals we lumped together and Killed.
None of the 2018 rules proposals have been “killed”. The preliminary decision by the Board was to not include a new BEARS Sidecar class. Members are encouraged to provide input on this and every other proposal before the final decisions are rendered on October 9.
You are correct of course. But when a vote of this nature and at this level is taken if it doesn’t kill the proposal it surely mortally wounds it. My question is was this proposal given to the Sidecar Committee for review and comment and why is there a preliminary vote at all by the board.
Yes, your proposals were reviewed by the Rules & Eligibility Committee. The response, as noted on the posted document, was “We are not prepared to offer a new class at this time.”
The member comment period can be helpful for gathering additional information regarding a rule change, or to perhaps reveal a possible ramification that was not discussed at the Trustee meeting — hence the preliminary vote, then final vote a couple of months later.
Thank You for the explanation.
Addressed in a personal message. Each proposal was decided individually, but the comments were Identical. Remember, the July vote is provisional. Final voting is in October.
Same thing happen last year with the rewording of our proposal . Why does this happen ?
The posted document is a 16-page synopsis of the well-over-100-pages of proposals received. Several weeks before the Board meeting, the Trustees are sent copies of the original proposals for thorough review. They then work from that original paperwork during the discussion and voting process.
Every proposal with my name on it was submitted jointly by myself and Karsten Illg. This was clearly stated when I emailed the proposals to AHRMA’s Executive Director; Mr. Illg was copied on that email.
I strongly object to the redaction of that information.
While ensuring that the wording and intent of your 11 proposals was accurate, the wish for Mr. Illg’s name to be included was inadvertently overlooked. The August issue of Vintage Views was already at the printer when you corrected this error, but the online posting has been corrected. Please accept this apology.