Jim Lattin as President
13 Goals for 2007
.......
Goal #7 SCTA first of all is a club and exists to provide its membership a safe, fun and economical race program. Secondly SCTA is a business and must maintain financial stability. There appears to be enough money in the treasury to start giving back to the racers possibly by lowering fees.
.....
Ok Bob, I'll bite. (At the risk of a blowfly coming in and disrupting our conversation)
I agree with Jim on items 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13.
When Jim and I spoke on Sunday, we spent alot of time on #7. I understand what he is saying but I disagreed with this statement. In order for the SCTA to provide the race program it must FIRST maintain financial stability, not the other way around. If the SCTA is bankrupt it cannot provide anything! So even if you agree with #7 you must at least admit that the SCTA has to remain financially viable before it is able to provide anything to the racer. Now, there is a valid discussion as to what a reasonable amount of money in the "war chest" should be but I think that there must be a war chest in case of the worst case scenerio possibilities concerning weather and Speedweek & World Final cancellations. I have heard that the SCTA-BNI is in for about $150,000 as of the day before Speedweek starts and if a rainout happens then that money is GONE and we need to be able to do it all over again without any new infusion of cash. If we get a second rainout then thats another $150,000 gone and we need to be able to do it again! So that makes $450,000 needed to survive a worst case 2 year speedweek rainout. Of course, odds are that it wont happen like that in 2007 and 2008. The SCTA has been running at Bonneville for almost 60 years and we have had double rainouts in the past. Are you a gambler? I'm not and I dont want our board to be either.
I suggested to Jim that if the goal was to reduce the SCTA war chest then how about an insurance policy? And I mean literally an insurance policy. You can get a custom policy for just about anything so I would assume you could get a rainout, or a double rainout policy. It may cost more than we think it's worth but it IS an option.
As time permits I will post my reasons on the other points where I think Jim and I look at things differently.