The Un-cleansed Details

Here is the stuff the N/A didn't want you to see..


Minutes of IPRA National Delegates Meeting held Saturday 24th March 2012

Venue: Sydney International Airport Inn

Attendees:
National Administrator: Garry Mennell
Delegates: Steve Cherry (WA), James Pocock (NT), Ben Schoots (VIC), Alan Bucton (NSW), Leigh Forrest (Tas), Luigi De Luca (SA)
Visitors: Phil Larmour (NSW) Gary McKay (VIC), Gary Cook (NSW)
Absent: Drew Lawrence (QLD) due to delayed flight


Meeting commenced 9.50am

1. Opening & Introduction
GM thanked everyone for attending and briefly ran over the schedule

2. Review minutes from SA meeting held in September – Craig Sharp

• Tyre tender/constitution- now have new version Oct 2011 – minor changes in wording
• Rear wing – resolved
LD Weighing of vehicles should read ‘All states should weigh vehicles’.
Minutes Accepted Proposed SC - Seconded AB






3. IPRAA Financial Report



IPRAA Financial Statement
March 2012 National Del. Meeting

Period beginning 1/12/2011
Period Ending 21/03/2012

Date Transaction Debit Credit Balance

1-Dec-11 Opening Balance $2,580.32 CR

1-Dec-11 Acc. Fee $10.00 $2,570.32

1-Jan-12 Acc. Fee $10.00 $2,560.32

1-Jan-12 Acc. Fee $10.00 $2,550.32

1-Mar-12 Acc. Fee $10.00 $2,540.32

5-Mar-12 IPRASA Chq. 2011 Nationals reimbursement $7,250.00 $9,790.32

21-Mar-12 Closing Balance $9,790.32 CR


GM
• now signatory for account – changing name
• Received money from SA Nationals – looking ok
• Outstanding money from TAS – will be put into account
• Yokohama asked to simplify Sponsorship money they are giving due to pervious drama’s – one cheque to be sent from now on to National body.
• Guidelines stipulate what money should be spent on
AB Suggested coming up with an easier method for payments
GM Lee Forrest(Tassie) to get $15,000 for Nationals 2012
4. Status of action items from previous National meeting
BS
• Inquired about rule review document – GM suggested best option would be to put on hold until other matters are resolved. Break document down into bits ie: Align with CAMS manual the 3J Fuel Systems(schedule N) and ROPS(schedule J)
LD Tyre wording was approved Nov AMRC but not issued.
GM Tyre compound details now set in place 23/3/12. Will be put on website Mon or Tues next week. Hopeful to get the 2 pressing items done in next month and then work on other things after that.
LD There will be more changes within CAMS personal wise
GM Regarding the mixing of tyres on a car–said this was covered in CAMS manual – Need to check if allowed to run 40 on front and 50 on back. LD stated that 3J regulations can override if required
GM Different types/compounds of tyres on one vehicle - To be reviewed.

5. State by State overview of 2012 club championships
BS - VIC
• 1 round T/D – Winton AASA better than previous
• 30 cars entered – had 17 towards the end.
• No issue with new A050 or compounds( everyone used M)
• Have 5 rounds this year due to Winton clashing with Nationals so dropped Winton round
• Changed format from 2 qualifying to 1 qualifying
• Will finish early November 2012
AB – NSW
• 6 rounds
• 1st round – 27 overs – 28 unders (approx)
• 3 Eastern Creek
• 3 Wakefield
• Bathurst not part of championship
• Finish November 2012

GM
• Bathurst really good – LF and BS competed
• Response was good
• New pit area was really good
• Better format
• Ray Hislop broke lap record
• Driving standard was excellent
• Spoke to James O’Brien – very impressed with us. Will be back next year
• Had good year – didn’t need to use resources in account
• Currently $15,500 in Bathurst account
• GM showed everyone expense spreadsheet
• Due to financial reasons with NSW account, each state received a dividend cheque for $600 All still retain original $500 investment in fund.
• Bathurst account will stand at $12,500 for 2013 with sponsorship money still to come in.
• Can’t supply DVD unless we buy TV package – hoping to be able to do this next year.
• GWS Personnel happy with advertising/sponsorship.

LF - TAS
• 5 rounds – 1st round at Simmons Plains
• 2nd round – Baskerville 15/4/12 – Lloyd and Ray running
• Will have twice amount of cars at end of year compared to last year
• Had interest from QLD guys for running prior to Nationals
LD – SA
• Had 1st meeting – 20 entered in one day event
• 5 rounds – 4 plus 1 HQ mini Nationals
• Had a knock back as a few guys doing rounds interstate so not everyone will enter
• Have 2 new competitors
JP – NT
• 7 scheduled rounds – only doing 5 rounds due to track upgrades
• Have V8’s as the big event
• 3 new competitors for 1st round and 2 at end of year
• Last year 10 unders and overs
• A few coming back this year – will be 15-16
SC – WA
• 7 rounds – had 1st at Collie – 9 entries
• 1st race meeting at Wanaroo in May
• Estimate 15-20 cars competing on a regular basis which is down from 18 months ago due to people being overseas – not able to get into country
• Some came in for Nationals - going to race Targa category with IP cars
• Had 2 guys definitely going to start but roll cages don’t comply – will run as Targa cars
• Sub frames on Targa cars are fabricated and need be thrown in bin
GC Ref: Schedule J drawings – talked about cages etc – strut tower braces V back to firewall is not allowed under current IPRA rules

Break 11.00am – Recommenced 11.20am

6. General discussion on performance/feedback of A050 to date.
(Decision pending at the end of 12 month period)
GM A few cars ran at Bathurst – need to make a decision which way we go with contract – continue or not?
GC
• Looked at tyres from different cars. Has done work on setup to get it right.
• Made a couple of camber changes and spring rates – 3 sets
• 8 tyres looked good
• Lighter cars looked fine – lasted well – don’t get blue sheen
• 50’s don’t do that but they do blister if not the right set up
BS
• Comments from Mark Ruta – wheels used to spin in any gear – now it doesn’t – can put the power down better
• lowered lap times/records
• Broke lap record by 2.7 seconds
• Medium compound could be several seconds faster than A048 MH compound
LF
• Ran second race – under steered a lot more (48 on back?)
• Thoughts are good – felt like A008’s.
SC Ran at Collie under 2 litres – won

GM
• Lap record at Eastern Creek may go due to track change/work and A050’s
• Blisters may be a problem - wear out quicker than 48’s
• People need to see Yokohama if you have problems with tyres blistering.
• Generally would appear that people are happier with new tyre
BS 48’s didn’t have great tyre wear – not excessive but performance dropped off
GM Greg Nolan and Gordon Leven Tyres have invested in heat treating system – they believe A050’s respond well to this. They can do 1 set at a time – possible reduces blistering.
SC
• In Perth – didn’t have 50 tyres in stock??
• Dropped rims off to be fitted
• Maybe 265’s problems with supply?
GM
• Problem with 265’s supply – Brad Shaw is aware of this GM to get update
• Next weekend state round – can supply as shipment is in transit
• All competitors must make sure to order tyres in plenty of time!!
BS 215-50-15 haven’t started making yet – ordered in January – was on list but not made yet.
JP Took 6 weeks to get tyres – ordered in June 2011 – didn’t come till August - had to pull out of race. 265 48’s took 4 weeks – received wrong tyres – got 50’s.
GM If you have a problem with dealers let GM know. 6 weeks is unacceptable!!
GM to check NT supply update
7. TAS Nationals update
LF
• Entries will go out soon – they need to be finalised
• Handed out Nationals flyer. Having meeting with Minister for Tourism regarding transport/accommodation etc
• Discussed transport costs for Nationals
• Question: Allocation of money? – GM said he will try and get $15,000 in one hit.
• Eligibility officers – At least one officer from another state must attend.

8. Review IPRA National format and procedural document.
(Yokohama funds to be managed by N/A)

Overview of Nationals – 2011 – SA
LD
• 55 entries – 34 locals – 21 interstate –
• 0 - NSW, 6 – VIC, 8 – WA, 2 – TAS, 4 – QLD, 1 – NT
• Good event, went well
• There was one note in regards to point score (Cams doc error)
• Should be different table – will give out to everyone
LF
• Points determine where you make it and where you start in finals
• Trophies go on points in final,
o Eg: Phillip Island Paul McKenzie crossed line first but trophy was given to someone else – This was fixed up at the time
• Maybe look into point scoring – trophy given
SC Mallala thoughts
• Running/racing – extra driver briefing – probably targeted at one particular person
• Eligibility checks was nowhere near previous National meetings
• Got breathalysed – they were very thorough
• Measured rear wings (Not same as done in Perth or Phillip Island)
• Tyres were checked in-grid
• Ray Hislop had brand new boots but could not race as they did not comply
• Overall checks for safety was OK
SC WA asked SA to arrange to have motors sealed/measured/checked before they went – they were knocked back not sure why.
LD They were not knocked back – you can seal it but if questioned it will be pulled apart
GM
• Phillip Island Magic (week later) comments – re: eligibility – could have been better – run properly above board but could have been better
• Trophies – Mark Ruta and Justin Kees mix up
• No trophies for 2nd and 3rd outright – Only have trophy for 1st
LF Nationals WA – every competitor got photo of chequered flag and a participation certificate
GM
• Wants to set a standard – need to make sure each state meets criteria. If hosting state wants to do more the is set down, that’s ok.
• Do U2L need to run separate or not?
• Is the Top 10 Shootout, good or bad?
GM Suggested that it should be mandatory that at least one outside state IPRA eligibility officer attends event. All agreed.
GM Went through some possible expenses to host IPRA Nationals, track fees, officials, advertising etc
Break 12.45pm - Recommenced at 1.40pm
Review IPRA National format cont:
• Issues with the number of grids re scheduling time availability
• Change wording to ‘up to ……… grids’ suggested
• Grid capacity of track
• Promoter’s flexibility of schedule depending on supports for that event.
GM Break qualification sessions into 3 groups was suggested
LD Have matrix for 3 different variations suggested
GM If current concept doesn’t work – need to be able to change in future
• Need to clarify the value of each race
• If we incorporate Top 10 Shootout, do you want to keep that just for Top 10 exclusively?
BS
• Keep Top 10 S/out as compulsory? Needs to be some sort of reward/prize All Agreed
• Maybe have this race at end of qualifying, before heats – no reserves.
• Top 10 determines where you start in heat races
o 1st – Group A
o 2nd – Group B
o 3rd – Group C etc All Agreed
General suggestion was, encourage a sponsor or reward ie: trophies, prizes etc for Top 10 S/out, maybe $500 plus trophy and make it that everybody gets a participation plaque.
Point Scores – all ok with – 50, 47, 45, 43 etc. then 1 for finishing
If you have 64 do you cap the grid at 32 + 10%? 2 x grid density + 10% LF to find out
Organising state needs to inform maximum entries that can be taken at the event.
Number of entries must comply with track capacity?
Repechage heat split to what’s comfortable – first 4 finishers get in to the final All Agreed
Unders and Overs – split this? Or leave as is. Leave as combined. All Agreed


GM
• Organisers to put a timeline in for repechage– 30 minutes before scheduled repechage. A preliminary grid sheet will be issued subject to 4 from the repechage race. All Agreed
• Have awards/trophy covering final and repechage races
• You must finish either repechage race or finals race to get a trophy All Agreed
• Competitor can still win class without running in final, ie; in repechage race
• Class awards determined by finishing highest in repechage OR final
• Point score table is irrelevant after 6th heat race regarding national results
• Minimum requirement – provide trophies
• Prize money – check CAMS website for Nationals document
LF
• Prize money – change wording ‘Minimum’ of $5,000 to ‘Maximum’. All Agreed
General chat about Class trophy’s to keep as IP capacity’s (0-1600, 1600- 2000 etc) not A,B,C etc.
GM Will make changes as discussed to current IP Nationals document and distribute Action
Break 3pm - Recommenced 3.20pm
9. Eligibility Officer Job Description document review and finalise.
• Original document discussed at delegates meeting
• Changes made last year handed out in Feb 2011 – Craig was to discuss with CAMS
• Changed document was issued January 2012
Discussed any changes between Version 1 and final version.
PL Should EO’s be a national committee so they can discuss any changes?
LD Explained SA background as to why no state E/O.
BS Noted that SA club maybe could have taken a better course of action
GM
• Each state should encourage pre-race checks
• Criteria must say that every state must have EO and are expected to follow guidelines.
• SA needs to have club EO – not someone from CAMS (ie: race meeting scrutineer).
• 4 point document (final) GM to date document and send out
LD Noted, that it is clear to all that this document “is only a guideline”
GM
• Will put out spreadsheet with info of President, Vice President, Secretary and State E/O to all delegates for each state. Encouraged all that we need to communicate better.
• Need to make sure that vehicles that are non-compliant shouldn’t show up at race meetings.

10. National Ballots/questionnaires/Voting – General review

• Effectiveness of sending out
• Craig disappointed with some responses
• Results for NA vote – half were deemed invalid
• Any suggestions to change this?
SC 3j Logbooks – voting issue/log book issues.
2011 IPRA NA vote breakdown
State Actual Votes Received Invalid Votes


NSW 50 20
VIC 15 5
SA 15 4
TAS 8 3
WA 5 3
QLD 7 7 Votes not counted as no club register received
NT 1 1 Votes not counted as no club register received

GM CP

101 43 47 11


Reasons for Invalid votes
Vehicle not L/B as 3J 21
No such Vehicle 5
Person not listed as Reg in their State 5
No Vote Marked on Ballot 1
Not Owner of Vehicle 3



General chat about the need to work to the constitution to comply. Voting says you have to have a 3J logbook to be able to vote. This was questioned?
General discussion took place about things to be covered on Sunday
LD Bi-Laws /procedures document
• 1.3 is covered in 6
• 1.4 is covered by 6
• 1.5 committee says it’s up to state – what they can afford – should be left up to them. Should not be compulsory.
• 8.4 doesn’t mention anything about bi laws
• Look at definitions and interpretations of rules and Regulations
• Lou has issues with bi-law proposed by GM
• Any requests must be given to National Administrator at least 60 days before next delegate meeting
• GM to specify which documents needed to be in 60 days before meeting.
BS 8.4 talks about technical manual
Action. GM to look at developing IP operational manual
Meeting Closed 5pm
Sunday 25/3/12
All attended and state delegate Drew Lawrence (QLD) joined meeting
Meeting commenced at 9.20am
1. Recapped Saturdays meeting

2. State by State for QLD
DL - QLD
• They have already had a round
• They had some new members with new cars
• There is usually a low attendance but they had 24 for the 1st round which was encouraging
• Justin Wade is back with his V8 BMW
• Had good feedback on tyres
• Doug Skiller broke the record at Bathurst

3. General discussion on IPRA Current position and future direction
GM 3J Preamble in CAMS manual (specifications of Automotives) – All need to read this.
DL QLD had concerns about mission statement – Do we have one – What direction are we going in.
GC Need to look back 5 years and see if we need to change anything to do with the running of the cars.
LD In SA locals saw big “top end” cars at Nationals. IP not about having only top cars in their races – No excitement in that – it would not be good for SA in their opinion
PL Maybe need to develop own CAMS white paper equivalent – look at clarifications from 5 years ago and see if we need to change anything
GM IMO last 5-6 years IP has taken a few big steps – interstate travel, big dollar cars, more professional – boundaries are not as high so is better.
LF Had 100 cars enter at Phillip Island which was good
GM
• Need to make sure rules are same for all states
• Need to be mindful of people’s budgets and finances.
• We shouldn’t discount anyone or vehicle
• Need to look at mission statement/strategy document
• Need to look at catering/rules – Do we only cater for top 10 or bottom 20? – We need to make sure we cater for everyone.
GC Constitution has mistakes with rules and regulations
Action: GM to look at IP mission statement

4. Over 6 litre inclusion proposal
GM
• Which state has discussed this at committee level? - TAS, SA, WA, NSW, QLD
• Refer to flow chart IPRA Rule review. See appendix A
• They would have to comply to current 3J L/M rules
ALL AGREED ON CONCEPTS
DL - QLD
• NO Had concerns – Read minutes from club meeting
Club members were not in support of this proposal and considered the proposed change caters for a small number of “potential” new competitors rather than the majority of existing competitors i.e. we are changing the rules to suit a minority who want to run late model over 6L cars, rather than consider the majority who have already built eligible cars. Members queried the impact on competitiveness of existing cars and also believe that to build a car to comply, and be under 6L, is not prohibitive;

LF – TAS
• Yes Agrees 6.2 litre must remain – XR6 turbo not a drama
LD – SA
• NO not good for category
• 6 litre class – forced to make changes if 6.2 litre
• People outside 130% discussed
JP – NT
• Yes But asked what happens if someone brings out 7litre – are we only going to go to 6.2litre?
GC Informed that proposed had no cap , but did say that a cap could be implemented if agreed
GM Suggested that maybe we should continue with a potential cap in mind
SC – WA
• No No limit to Capacity
• Commodore 6.2 litre no problems – outside of that .
BS – VIC
• No Catering for vehicles with specialized tuning from that of a STD tune
• No cap – where does it end – dangerous to have open ended
• Work proposal more
AB - NSW
• YES
GM Vote count 3 yes – 4 no
• Maybe a list of vehicles required i.e. eligibility list
LD – SA
• Need to have understanding about what class is about – direction etc before we make changes.
DL – QLD
• Feels constitution contradicts specifications of automobiles.

Break 10.30am - Meeting recommenced at 10.50am
5. LM turbo restrictor proposal
Two states put in proposals – VIC and NSW
Victorian one came in late for a couple of states – Doc didn’t get to meeting but was discussed (combined)
DL – QLD
• NO – read minutes from club meeting

QIPRA members could not agree that there was a definitive/genuine disparity between EMT and LMT. Numerous examples of competitive LMT cars were cited to counter the argument that there is a disparity. It was generally considered that with the same amount of effort (development, time, budget) currently given to other front running cars, LMT can be competitive. It was also noted that the proposed increase in restrictor sizes was deemed excessive particularly when considering the cited examples of competitive LMT cars.

LF – TAS
• Pro’s for NSW – worthwhile exploring – 2nd increase on rear drive only etc
• Con’s for NSW – too hard to police A050’s are unknown on late model turbo
• YES VIC proposal –but with few tweaks
LD – SA
• NO – Both - was discussed at club meeting but no minutes forwarded to N/A
JP – NT
• YES – NSW proposal – although didn’t go far enough weight wise, stopping 1400 kgs.
• YES – only 2 people had feedback
SC – WA
• NO – NSW – would impact on some of larger type cars.
• YES – VIC – with tweaks - need to come up with ratio
• Wouldn’t increase restrictor size but there is a need to go somewhere with it.
• Concede whether to make restrictor bigger
• Removing restrictors not an option
BS – VIC
• NO - NSW – difficult to manage – too big a change in one hit – 4mm too dramatic
• YES - VIC – with tweaks
AB – NSW
• YES - VIC – Some step forward was better than no step at all.

GM Vote count. 5 yes – 2 no (Vic Proposal) 2 yes – 5 no (NSW Proposal)
Majority YES – VIC – to make slight changes to finalise doc and take back to National delegates – GM to distribute final draft of Vic proposal – It was noted that they need to do some tweaks. The table with weights and restrictor size, had not enough information
Final decision to be made on VIC proposal will be made at next Delegate Meeting
DL Maybe put into practice and get feedback – what do we change if things (votes) turn around in the future?

6. Constitution problems
GM Problem with Constitution – re: ballots – does majority rule or do you go to a ballot?
BS Action : To send email to GM re: Majority ruling
Constitution 6.4
National Delegates should be able to make a decision on behalf of everyone as a majority rule
LD Maybe put more information in proposals so you can make better decisions
All delegates need to make a decision about constitution.
Discussed majority rules as 2/3 = 5 out of 7 votes – Everyone agreed except LD – SA.
SA wants unanimous vote to be re-voted on. Does not want a majority to rule.
LD Look at 12.1 in constitution.
National Delegates can make a vote to change Constitution but must give 30 days notice before implementing that change. Otherwise needs to go to members for a ballot.
BS Thinks we need to change wording in Constitution to best reflect intension of previous intended changes.

Lunch Break 12.45pm - Meeting recommenced 1.15pm

7. Review final draft of IRPA rule review document
IPRA rule review document (currently in with CAMS) was discussed. GM to send copy of current rule review to everyone. GM asked that this be put on hold due to some timing issues as there are a couple of items that need to be followed up and approved now, ie, Roll Cage rule and Fuel Tank/Cell rule.
ALL AGREED
8. Constitution Cont:
Summarise – All agreed that you can’t change the Constitution at present – need to allow Lou from SA to go back to committee to discuss our proposal on whether to change to ‘Unanimous vote’ or Majority Vote’ by Delegates.
GM to change his document that he sent to all state delegates from ‘Bi-Laws’ to ‘Procedures’
AB Proposed we accept GM’s flowchart (see appendix A) – ALL AGREED – SC seconded
GM Discussed procedures – refers to article 6 in constitution
GC Suggested everyone have a committee meeting within the 21 days of new documents being submitted to discuss changes before delegate meeting. This will give members an opportunity to debate/discuss by sending email or holding a meeting to give information.
BS Flowchart
• Filter some requests
• Suggested how you communicate with your members – maybe write ‘Correspondence’
LD Wanted document deleted because it refers to 6.
9. Procedures discussed

1.1 Changed to read the following
‘The state delegate should act in accordance with Article 6 of the aforementioned Constitution’.
1.2 Changed ‘must’ to ‘should’
Change ’21 days’ to ’60 days’
1.3 Wording change – after ‘including’ put ‘where available’.
1.4 Delete
1.5 Will now be 1.4 etc change numbers –change ‘must’ to ‘should’.
1.6 Stay as is.
ALL AGREED (see appendix B)

10. Wording Constitution 12.1
General discussion about the effectiveness of the delegates voting procedures after the rewording of the Constitution last year
• drop word ‘Unanimous’ and include ‘Minimum 2/3 majority’
• Change word ‘may’ to ‘must’
SC AGREED AB SECONDED
LD asked for time to discuss with members first before he makes a decision.
Any problems with delegates voting to make changes to constitution?
AGREED – NO PROBLEM (6) OBSTAINED (1)
LD was given 60 days, or 2 club meetings, from 25th March to make a decision on this.
This will be discussed at next Delegates meeting.
11. IPRA State club magazines and websites.
GM - Suggested that all states have club magazine, and suggested for states unable to produce one that NSW club editor, Karen Ross could assist in providing one for small fee. A state would provide minutes, state points etc– these are included in the magazine. You can advertise social functions or anything else you want to add, such as photo’s, with a page dedicated to your sponsors. Also have someone who can manage websites if a state requires.
Cost – State to come up with cost – possibly $200 per magazine
QLD Not interested as they have a website
WA have website – not really interested in magazine but would be interested in reading it.
VIC Maybe interested - Feel that older people would like the magazine. They do have one but it costs a lot of money. New magazine could reduce costs for them.
SA Has website – used to have regular magazine but don’t have one now. Possibly interested – will put it to members.
NT Don’t have anything – Not interested due to low numbers
WA Not interested
GM may be looking to do National Magazine as well in the future with info from all clubs. This would be funded from National account. GM also noted that the capitation fee for each state has not been changed for 4 years, and that this would be reviewed as to why.
12. State General Business

GM - Asked that all correspondence that was to be distributed to the National Board, was to come through National Administrator first. Also any state agenda items for future delegate meetings need to be submitted to National Administrator in an appropriate time frame.
LD Proposal SA Early model wheel size increase in rim size
QLD NO
TAS NO
NT NO
WA NO
VIC NO
NSW NO
GM SA Proposal no support Vote count 1 yes – 6 no
DL – QLD
• Rule Review wording for RX8
• Bathurst profits and accounts balance, $600 given back? GM informed as per Sat discussion
VIC Inquired about Article 17.3 Front guard ruling and asked/suggestion “has horse already bolted on this?”
BS
• 1 at Sandown – hasn’t been racing since – didn’t get logged
• How far do we go with this rule? 5mm, 10mm
PL
• There is 2% tolerance
• Original says can do minor reshaping
• Wording has changed
Discussion – can you pump guard out? As it says width cannot be changed.
Stay with rule – Suggested to review wording ALL AGREED
BS Tabled Vehicle submission – Renault Cleo Cup Car
• Raced at State round without being checked. GMcK wanted to look at car but didn’t get to see it as car left.
• When he did see it – it was non-compliant
• No dash
• Has 2 under trays
• Has diffuser 180mm in front of front axle all the way to the back.
• Has plastic instead of door trim
• Has roof vent
• Has non-compliant spoiler
• No rubber joints in suspension
• GMcK told him he would discuss this at the delegates meeting – as the car doesn’t comply to our rules
• Should this car be able to run?
• He will need to do a lot of work, but if he produces Homologation papers that comply, he can run as Cleo cup
BS Rule review – can we propose roll cage and fuel tank be pushed through.
GM At last Del. meeting – weighing cars – discussed effectiveness of weighed cars records – Refer to weight 18.0 of 35 Reg.
AB Suggested resubmitting as complete new article (refer to weight break document)
GM to investigate if 215/ 50 x 15 A050 is on the list. When will they start making them – for LF (TAS). Action: GM to contact Yokohama
Next meeting will be scheduled for September – October. It can’t be 13/14th Oct as VIC have a race meeting. V8 Bathurst is on 6/7th Oct
Meeting closed 3.45pm.

See succeeding pages for Appendix A & B






Appendix A
IPRA Rule Review Flow chart

This chart outlines the procedural steps that are to be taken in IPRA when items are put forward for general discussion/debate or review to a change in regards to any aspect of the current 3J technical rules. The following procedure should give any proposal every opportunity to have a fear and reasonable hearing. The IPRA Rule Review Request form should be used in conjunction with the following
















Appendix B
IPRA State Delegates Obligations
This document is designed to outline and clarify some of the responsibilities that are to be undertaken by each IPRA State Delegate prior to or at any IPRAA executive meeting. Please note that this document coincides with the IPRAA constitution (updated Oct 2011) and must be read in conjunction with that constitution or any that precedes it.
IPRAA Procedure 1.1
The state delegate should act in accordance with article 6 of the aforementioned constitution and should comply with all of the following procedures and is to the satisfaction of the N/A or to a majority of delegates.
IPRAA Procedure 1.2
All relative documents and correspondence should be submitted to the N/A no later than 60 days prior to a scheduled National Delegates meeting.
IPRAA Procedure 1.3
Ensure that their respective IPRA clubs obtain all relevant and necessary information where available, an email address from all persons wishing to join or renew their membership.
IPRAA Procedure 1.4
Each Delegate should ensure that their respective clubs undertake every possible means to provide for their membership no less than either (1) a regularly published (minimum of 4 per year) IPRA state club magazine, or (2) a state based website that is updated on a regular basis.
IPRAA Procedure 1.5
Ensure that all capitation fees, that have been set as per 7.5 of the above mentioned constitution are paid in full to the N/A no later tha

This is the letter read to the IPRASA at their club meeting as a result.


To the members of the IPRASA,

I hate politics…. I love car racing…. But unfortunately the two go hand in hand….

There are those who aim to win world championships and then those who are like you and me who enjoy entry level motorsport… There are categories for people with big budgets and there is the IPRA, or that’s how our constitution reads anyway….

So what is this all about?

It really boils down to where you see, or want to see our category. Do you see it as an entry level form of motorsport, or do you think our constitution is wrong? Should we be changing the concept of improved production to allow more cars that exceed build costs of $150,000?

I wish to make you aware of a series of events that have taken place over the past weeks with regards to proposed rule changes. As president of the IPRASA I feel transparency is the best policy, but before we can discuss the clubs current position with regard to these matters we need to make sure everyone is clear on how our system is currently set up. So that you can make informed choices when it comes time to vote.

It goes without saying that rules can and do change over the years in any form of motorsport; these changes should enable a category to move forward while protecting those who are already part of the competitor base. Being an entry level category we need to progress carefully as the last thing we want to do is lose the cars we already have on the grid.

The normal process is for a proposed rule change (as requested by a competitor in a submission) is for it to be reviewed at a state level first when presented at a monthly meeting. If a majority of the competitors within the state believe the change is worth presenting to the national body for approval nation wide, that states delegate will forward the proposal to the other national delegates for discussion.

The delegates should then take the proposal they have received to their respective clubs and present it to their states members for discussion without bias. If the proposal is approved at state level (through a majority rules system) the delegates will pass on their states decision at the next delegates meeting in the form of a vote.

If a majority of state competitors disagree with a proposed rule change the state delegate must relay the concerns of his states members back to the national body and those who have submitted the proposals. The submitting state can then choose to addressed the concerns of others, amend the rule to suit the concerns raised by others or they can forget about the proposal. This process may need to happen a number of times before the concerns of a majority of members within other states are addressed.

Every state should be working on majority rules system when voting on any matters at state level, and every delegate should be representing the ‘majority’ of their states members (or the winning vote if you like). As it stands, every state delegate must vote in favour of a proposed rule change for the rule to be approved. As you are all aware there have been a number of proposed rule changes put forward by a number of states including South Australia in the past months.

So why have I felt the need to explain what we all know? Please read on.

As you may recall we put forward a proposal in regards to tyre sizes for early model cars and it was knocked back. At this stage we have chosen not to pursue the matter any further and this is ultimately the choice of the person who submitted it, end of story.

There have also been two other proposals with regards to restrictor sizes and cars with a capacity over 6L. At this stage our state has expressed concern and has not approved these two rule changes, as a majority of our members believe it will do more harm to our category than good. I guess looking forward into what the end result will be for our category. The people, who put forward these last two proposals, have not followed normal protocol. They made efforts to change the constitution away from unanimous at national body level too two thirds as they claim the current system doesn’t work. If this gets through in the future it would mean that no matter how good an argument one or two states may have about why a rule should not be changed it can be over ruled by the rest, even if they were the two states with the most members.

Some will argue that one state can hold all others to ransom, however one must ask the question of how these matters have been addressed with our community as a whole before passing comment. Our delegate refused to vote on the matter as it was brought up at the meeting where proposed rule changes had been knocked back in a knee jerk reaction. As I stated before such changes must be discussed at a state level before the delegate can provide the states position.

The action by certain members of the national body to change the constitution because they didn’t get what they want; should raise your eyebrows as it goes against the normal protocol. It would empower those who want the rule changed, and one must ask who benefits before taking sides. If the constitution is changed it basically paves the way for the chosen few to dream up and implement rules without the consent of members. This is known commonly as a dictatorship, yet those who are trying to force this change claim that it is a democracy.

It has come to my attention that certain members of the national body have resorted to contacting various members of our club to engage in ‘off the record’ chats in an effort to ‘help’ our members make a decision when it comes time to vote again on these matters. It is at this point that I must explain my current position on this topic. I like all of you have an opinion on how our category should be run, what is good for our category and what is not. My opinion may differ from yours, it my not, but as president I am no different than any other club member, I have one vote and I am in no position to persuade others to vote for or against any proposed rule or constitutional changes.

Our state delegate is exactly the same, he must put forward what a majority of our members vote for if he agrees with it or not.

As you have probably guessed I was one of the people who a member of the national body tried to ‘help’. Although it is not against the law to talk to anyone (as long as there are no restraining orders involved) it is of some concern in this situation.

I have attached a series of ‘off the record’ emails for you to review. As president I handled myself diplomatically while trying to maintain standard operating protocols. I tried to advise that that system we have would work correctly if it were used correctly. Unfortunately this did not please the particular person and he has resorted in personally attacking me in a public forum. At this point I removed my presidential hat and responded to his comments (see attached) To make things clear my final email was my response and not that of the IPRASA.

Some of you may agree, with my response, some may not. Some may share my concerns over these proposed rule changes; some may not. But as president of the IPRASA I will never force the members of our club to vote for or against something they do not want. You as individual and valued members of the IPRASA must vote the way you feel is right and never be afraid to voice your concerns.

I understand that person on the national body whom I have had a disagreement with is in the process of drumming up support to have me reprimanded for my outburst and removed from my current position as president. But this will not change my point of view on the subject and nor should it change yours. You guys can vote any way you want. All I ask is that you look at all of the evidence first and think about what implications there could be if things are left unchallenged. Progress and growth is essential for any category, how it is achieved is optional.

Scott Clements
President of the IPRASA (For now)

This is the letter sent to CAMS from the IPRASA



IPRASA
C/- PO BOX 41
Lobethal
SA 5241


To Whom It May Concern:

The IPRASA being affiliated to CAMS ask CAMS as matter of urgency look into how the IPRAA is carrying out its business. As the IPRAA is recognised by CAMS as being the sole entity representing competitors in this category and which may make recommendations to CAMS for the category we feel that it is not currently acting in the best interests of the category.

There is currently a ballot in progress that we believe to be not only unconstitutional/biased but if the ballot request is implemented could lead to future changes that would not be in the best interest of the category.

In brief, the IPRAA constitution previously required any constitutional and or rule changes to be made by the ballot system to the members. To streamline changes the constitution was changed in the latter half of last year by the ballot system to allow any changes to be made by unanimous vote of the Delegates, naturally this would ensure that any change implemented would be in the best interests of the majority of IPRA members.

At the first delegates meeting this year it was without notice the view of the delegates bar one to change the constitution to allow change by a majority vote of the delegates, SA would not vote on the day as the delegate felt that this matter needed further discussion. The other delegates voted for the change.

SA members had two meetings and votes on this subject and on both occasions the acceptance for change did not get up.
There was some what could be considered bullying tactics to change the mind of the SA members to follow. We now have a ballot in progress promulgated by the NA and other State delegates that if implemented could lead to items being offered to CAMS that are not in the best interests of the category, not in the best interests of the current membership.

The IPRASA believes CAMS has a moral obligation to look into this as they have accepted the IPRAA as being the sole entity. We ask you to act promptly to establish an action plan to resolve this issue, and to freeze (or ask IPRAA to freeze it) the IPRAA ballot until the fundamental questions have been settled.


Scott Clements

On behalf of the IPRASA.

On 22/10/2012, at 5:50 PM, Michael Smith <Michael.Smith@cams.com.au> wrote:

Dear Scott,

I refer to your letter that was sent to Lynn Punshon earlier today.

On the basis of the information you have provided, I confirm that there appears to be a prima facie argument that the actions of your National body appear to be against its constitution. On that basis, I would be happy to speak with the appropriate person within the National Body to discuss this matter further.

It is important to note that CAMS cannot dictate to any club how to run its own affairs, however I would be pleased to speak with the appropriate person within the National Body to assist them in ensuring that correct governance principles are adhered to on the matter at hand.

If you have any further queries, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,
Mike Smith




Michael Smith
General Manager - Commercial Operations
direct: +61 3 9593 7785
mobile: + 61 416 111 443
<email_sig_8006df1.gif>
This electronic mail contains information that is privileged and confidential, intended only for use of the individual(s) or entity named. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, copying or use of the information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error please delete it immediately from your system and inform us by return email or telephone +61 3 9593 7777 and destroy the original message.


Disclaimer added by CodeTwo Exchange Rules 2007
www.codetwo.com

From: Scott Clements [mailto:sclements44@bigpond.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2012 3:29 AM
To: Michael Smith
Cc: Lyn Punshon; vince.ciccarello@dcsi.sa.gov.au; Michael Clements; David Morgan; Luigi De Luca
Subject: FW: Official letter of concern / complaint.


Dear Mike,

I don't want to sound like a broken record but this situation has gone beyond a joke. We have asked for CAMS help and assistance and it took far longer than we hoped before we got somewhere. We gave the situation a three week plus lead time and stalled our club members as long as we could before I put the hard word on people. I was delighted when I read you email and I responded to your email a few hours after it was received. My response to the email would have made all people who are privy to our correspondence aware of the action the IPRASA were going to take as a result. That night, after sending my email response, I announced proudly to the members of the IPRASA that the matter is in CAMS hands for now, and all who attended the our club meeting that night were happy with the situation and where we were at.

I'm aware that it has been a busy week for CAMS, but the lack of action taken in the past week has now complicated the situation further. Our N/A Has pushed on and tallied the votes in his un constitutional ballot, while ignoring the fact that two states have not returned any ballot papers and he's managed to come up with a result in his favour and he's already reworded the constitution to reflect the outcome.

It has also come to the attention of members across IPRAA, that some members in other states received multiple voting slips, while others members did not receive any at all. It is also noted that this ballot was not conducted in the correct manner on a number of other fronts, the first being that the returning officer happens to be a member of the IPRA NSW committee, the same committee which our N/A is a member of. The second is that all ballots are supposed to be secret, this ballot required voters to identify themselves. A ballot if constitutional should be anonymous, and the returning officer should be an independent party, e.g. The local CAMS office. But hey, it's ok that’s the same way this N/A got himself voted in to his position, only last time the returning officer was a friend of his family. I'm not sure if anyone else can see this, but this is just looks like some sort of rotten Chinese democracy to me.

Mike, I'm sorry if this sounds emotional, rude, harsh, angry or all of the previous and more, but I'm taking the diplomatic hat off for just a moment. I am not having a go at you or anyone else in CAMS just for the record, I just need to get the story out in the open if there is any hope of saving this category. Through being diplomatic and trying to work with the tools we had been given, this N/A has display that he is willing to discuss any situation involving the IPRAA, providing people agree with his point of view. When he can't wear a person down (help them to see the light) he discredits the person and moves on to the next, if he wears them down, he claims another vote. We the IPRASA can provide you with a huge amount of information backing this up along with other concerns. We are happy to discuss it with anyone who is willing to listen, preferably someone who can help. However, after he took "informal and off the record" emails of mine (informal and off the record at his request I must add) and select various small parts of my diplomatic responses out of context in an effort to berate me like an insolent school boy in front of the National body I'm reluctant to do so straight away. I have a gut feeling if the information is forwarded fully now he will get a copy somehow and set about discrediting me further, specific committee members further, the evidence we provide and the IPRASA as a whole with the help of his off sider, AKA the legal advisor (not willing to disclose names yet sorry) before he has even been spoken to by CAMS. If you like, he would be prepared for the job interview, this in combination with his gift of the gab would win over most people.

Please find attached a copy of his latest email as forwarded to our National delegate. Remember that if his modified constitution allowed to go ahead, the real reason why it was changed will show up quickly. Lyn and his team will have a lot of their time wasted with ill conceived rule change proposals which will only narrow result in narrowing the gap between state level Sports Sedans and Improved Production Cars even further if approved or slip through as has happened before. This will be at the expense of losing members of the current competitor base nationally as it will move our category away from our constitution even more. The IPRA constitution states that we aim 'to keep Improved Production Cars an economical form of automobile racing' and 'To encourage, and oppose deviation from, the concept of Improved Production racing as being a sedan based class regulated to ensure that it is within the means of club level enthusiasts.' We already have cars on grids around the nation with build costs in excess off $350,000, call me an idiot but I don't think to many punters with $10,000-$20,000 race cars are going to be able to progress past qualifying if the cut off is enforced.

This is the situation IPRASA has been trying to avoid, we asked questions, by asking for our concerns over proposed rule changes to be addressed by those proposing them and being diplomatic about it we've ended up here. There was no discussion, only another proposal to change the constitution which basically means they would be able to do what they want with the rules because they will be able to remove the voice of anyone who does not conform with their agenda.

I can't hide it from anyone that I personally have no time for the man anymore and I haven't hidden it from him either after his personal attack on me, the only thing I have time for is our category. Putting my Diplomatic hat back on and personal views about the way he operates aside, I am willing to work with the our N/A with the help of CAMS as a mediator in an effort to follow the constitution as it stands. The first thing the IPRASA needs from CAMS is conformation that the official complaint that was lodged a week before the ballot due date has been presented to the N/A, and that the processing of this ballot will be stalled until this is resolved. Sorry for the pressure Mike, but we really need you to get on this.

Kind regards

Scott Clements

From: Scott Clements [mailto:sclements44@bigpond.com]
Sent: Wednesday, 31 October 2012 5:26 AM
To: Michael Smith
Cc: Lyn Punshon; vince.ciccarello@dcsi.sa.gov.au; Michael Clements; David Morgan; Luigi De Luca
Subject: Re: Official letter of concern / complaint.

Morning Mike,

Looks like we're both nocturnal creatures. Ok, it looks like we have had a miss understanding in the last minute rush before the club meeting three of our committee members read your email on my iPad, we quickly typed a response and not one of us realised we hadn't given you the details for Garry Mennell in our response. He is the Assistant President of the IPRANSW and the National Administraitor for IPRAA. His number is 0407272165. His email should be on the attachment I sent earlier. If I've missed anything can you please let me know as time is of the essence.


And I'm sorry if I've waisted people's time.


Regards


Scott


Sent from my iPhone

So there it is...

The whole situation is not about ballots, constitutions, who votes who doesn't, it really about to rule proposals that required a little more work before they could be given the green light.

It's such a shame that all this anger could have been avoided if the guidelines for proposed rule changes had been followed in the first place.

Instead of answering the concerns of some people and winning their support the move was made to change the constitution so these people could be ignored.

When SA did not accept, they were force to vote and it did not get approved.

SA was forced to vote again, while the NA chose to ignore the IPRASA response as to why.

IPRAS voted again and again it did not get approved.

The N/A forced a Ballot, which forced SA to contact CAMS.