Special Stage Forums banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
There was a town hall meeting after Sawmill with PRB member Bill Bradshaw (hope I got that name right!) and it was very good. I did not see the Rim meeting but I suspect it was a lot like the one at STPR, a big open auditorium and a speaker/moderator standing up.

The way these things go is pretty much up to the leader of the meeting. If he/she is not wanting to take input or not wanting this to be open and participatory, you pick the stand-up, "presentation" style. It's pretty much a one way thing. If you want it to really be interactive, you sit down in a group. If the group is large, you have to break it into more than one group and have multiple modertors. Anyone who trains or conducts interactive group sessions knows this, and in sales, I see a big interaction difference in the "interactive group" vs. "presentation" style.

This is what happened at Sawmill: a group (albeit small) sitting around a table. The exchange of ideas was good (not perfect, and one of my issues was not understood; I can take care of that later), but I felt pretty good afterwards. AND, the attitude of PRB man was important; it was a listening attitude.

So, if the Rim meeting didn't go well, well.......look at how it was set up. As far as PRB action, I think they got "told" by the BoD to be listening more after the rash of protests written to the BoD last year. If it has to be done again, then write your BoD member again and have them "remind" the PRB to listen. We'll just keep doing it until it takes.

Mark Bowers
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
222 Posts
Thanks for the writeup Mark. I worked with Bill on Saturday and got to chat with him a bit. He seems like a nice enough guy in person. Can you elaborate on some of the specific points made and how they were received?
 
G

·
Town Hall Meeting Structure

Before I forget, the notes from several previous Town Halls can be found at www.WidgetRacing.com/clubrally and show an interesting evolution of attitudes over the years.

Back to the topic:

>I did not see the Rim meeting but I suspect it was a
>lot like the one at STPR, a big open auditorium and a
>speaker/moderator standing up.

The Rim meeting was a group of us sitting around a round table, close enough that we didn't have to speak loudly to be easily heard.

>This is what happened at Sawmill: a group (albeit small)
>sitting around a table.

My memories of the STPR town halls are similar to those of Rim,
although slightly different because of the room. A bunch of people (well, maybe a couple of dozen) sitting around a few tables exchanging concerns and ideas.

>So, if the Rim meeting didn't go well, well.......look at
>how it was set up. As far as PRB action, I think they got
>"told" by the BoD to be listening more after the rash of
>protests written to the BoD last year. If it has to be done
>again, then write your BoD member again and have them
>"remind" the PRB to listen. We'll just keep doing it until
>it takes.

Hear, hear.

>Mark Bowers

---------------------------------------
John Dillon John @ WidgetRacing.com
www.WidgetRacing.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Well I'll tell you what I remember, and that's very shaky. No, I was not drinking, just tired; and, I was viewing Bill's note pad upside down......

1) Safety issues:
Should bolt in cages be banned? Mixed reactions.
General discussion on cage rules and clarifications and posssible better alignment with FIA.
Discussion of better weld inspections in cages being built; some mention of weld testing methodology, this topic well received.
Roof vents for P class mentioned (see SubieGal's posts).
2) Suggestion that stage notes be incorporated into Club events. This draw very mixed reactions, and there were strong advocations for and against. The 'for' was mainly about "how do we get new people trained for Pro Stage notes' and 'tulips are a thing of the past'; the 'against' was in the ares of cost, concern over safety, and maintaining the tulip system for its own sake.
3) A brief mention was made on the idea of more participation in the Natl Forest Service forest use planning process, and PRB responsibility to generate more rallies; not much time on this one.
4) At the risk of misquoting Bill, he mentioned getting the impression that based on the general rally community reactions, it seemed like we had started down a road to fix something that wasn't broke in the first place. Lots of 'huzzahs' on that idea! Lots of us perked up and said 'Hey how about a 3rd tier ABOVE the existing system??'
5) Some discussion on a rallysprint flyer being written mainly from the language on the ProRally website, and you-know-who in CO getting all peevish over the word 'racing' being used in the flyer several times, even though it's right off the website. A suggestion was made to review all the website info and make sure it was officially 'usable' by all of us.

That's all I was there for; several individuals had apporached Bill earlier and made suggestions; he had a list already when we started. I don't know the nature of those suggestions.

Mark B.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,757 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
RE: Town Hall Meeting Structure

Hi John,

I was just imagining this RIM meeting to be a preachy one way deal, based on the negative ractions posted. My mistake! Always lookin' for trouble...well, it happens when you lose trust ........

Mark
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top