Hello,

I see the “Ministry of Misinformation” is working tirelessly lately. It’s disappointing to read all the accusations, name-calling, conspiracy theories and just over-all cheap shots being taken at the Board. There’s a lot of “out-of-context” information being distributed lately. Maybe some Board members don't post on message boards because they feel they're being baited into an on-line lynching?

I've always felt it's better to do business face-to-face then the lobbing insults via an electronic kangaroo court. People are more cordial and courteous when dealing in person. There is a lot lost via e-mail and sarcasm/humor is rarely portrayed as intended. But since most won’t make the effort to come to a board meeting they won’t see how the process really works. (Psst…. Its way less sinister then people would lead you to believe.)

As Board members we're at a severe disadvantage online. Non-Board members can hurl insults, make false accusations then slink away into lurk mode without repercussion. Board members must stand accountable for everything that we communicate, and heaven forbid we make any mistakes. Not exactly a level playing field. Easier to stay quiet then get jumped on-line and spend hours explaining what they meant to say.

So in effort to help bridge the gap a small amount let's start fresh and I’ll monitor this post for questions and answer them to best of my ability. Please keep it civil and non-personal and we may be able to coax other Board members to respond as well. Be advised we’re not experts in all facets of this business, just enthusiasts giving back to the club the best we can.

First question?

AFM #21
Shawn Reilly
AFM President

you make some good points, and even i have issues with trying to keep up, and bothering to keep up with 1000 monkeys at keyboards posting misinformation.

although it may be better to do things face to face, that is not a practical solution, relaying the same information to each person over and over individually.

yes, the board meeting is a good place to get information, but it is not practical for myself. for me, the drive is nearly insurmountable.....it could only be justified if there was going to be an actual lynching. while you list some points where the 1000 monkeys have advantages, the board members certainly have many other advantages. imo, risk of doing something wrong is not a valid reason for doing nothing. imo, if board members to not want to interact with the membership, they are not very good board member candidates.


1. much like the novice who starts prepping his bike the night before the races, it seems that this insurance issue was very unnecessarily last minute.

a) knowing the date of the first race months in advance, how is it possible that this very important issue was delayed until the week before the races ?

b) who is responsible for allowing this insurance selection process to not be settled far earlier ?

c) i read that the policy was not available for review at the time of the board meeting.....how can you make an insurance decision without even reviewing the actual policy ?

d) do you consider the tardiness of the insurance selection to be a problem ? if so, what steps do you intend to take to prevent this type of problem in the future ?

a) knowing the date of the first race months in advance, how is it possible that this very important issue was delayed until the week before the races ?

It wasn't until end of Jan, that I learned T-Hill's carrier was moving toward barring under 16 year olds to race. It took until the 3rd week of Feb for the carrier to relent but asked for help to create a National minimum standard to qualify kids under 16. They eventually agreed to the standard the AFM created and even worked with Infineon’s parent company for feedback. This opens a door for a possible dialog with Infineon on their policy of only 16 and older participants. The caveat was we needed to supply our own GL insurance as historically we've used the track's insurance.

So to answer this question we didn’t start asking our old carrier until it became apparent we needed to carry our own GL to allow under-16 minors to ride in late Feb.

During this same time, since the insurance topic was on the table, Barb made the recommendation that we require vendors to carry GL because our current carrier was leaning in that direction. I thought this vendor “requirement” made sense as it is a fairly common request within the industry.

I sent an e-mail to the vendors about requiring GL coverage this year on Feb 19th fully expecting the vendors to have GL since it was required at T-Hill 2008. I believed it to be no more than a formality to get the certificates. Alex Florea then informed us that it was never a requirement and requested that the policy be reverse and let the board discuss it. A second e-mail was sent retracting the "requirement" Feb 21st with the verbiage that we would be discussing this at future board meetings. Neither I, nor the majority of the board, expected vendors to be not carrying any type of GL.

b) who is responsible for allowing this insurance selection process to not be settled far earlier ?

Ultimately me. Late Feb was when our current carrier was asked to cover GL for BW and T-Hill which required additional limits set by the contracts. I also recommended my agent to Barb (an AFM member) for alternative carriers for price comparisons. There are only 2 motorsports carriers offering coverage these days so it's no great surprise the new quote we received came was from the same carrier that provides T-Hill and BW insurance. In the end our carrier never came back with a quote. With only one quote, which contained the vendor requirement, we signed the day before the Board meeting.


c) i read that the policy was not available for review at the time of the board meeting.....how can you make an insurance decision without even reviewing the actual policy ?

The policy wasn't available but the binder, what we signed to get the policy, had the vendor verbiage in it. Think of the binder as the gate keeper to get the policy. The policy itself takes weeks to put together after the binder is signed.

d) do you consider the tardiness of the insurance selection to be a problem ? if so, what steps do you intend to take to prevent this type of problem in the future ?

Yes. We fully expected our old carrier to pick up the coverage and for the AFM to decide whether or not to require the vendors to carrier their own GL. They, the old carrier, lead us to believe it was the quote coming even up to the day before the board meeting. What we didn't ask for, or anticipate, was the new carrier's vendor requirement. Although we requested, we were unable to get exemptions for vendors for the first race.

The Board approved the vendor requirement (unanimously, one abstention) and most of the vendors were notified on the Friday one week prior to our first event. I say most because it wasn't until several e-mails went back and forth it was noticed Race Ready was left off that e-mail chain. Race Ready wasn't notified until Tuesday before the race.

I don’t anticipate any new requirements, but I will need to be more pro-active with the tracks this year. The minor issue hadn’t come up in several years, so hopefully we won’t need to change carriers or coverage any time soon thus avoiding this situation in the future.

The new policy gives the AFM better coverage, allows special events, allows under-16 racing and met each tracks minimum requirement which gives us a lot of flexibility going forward. It also allows us to cancel ancillary policies our old carrier couldn’t which should save us money in the long run.

Despite the rumor we searched out a lower price first, it was getting the coverage in time for the season start that was the overriding priority. It was never meant to punish, eliminate or cause undo hardship on the vendors who support the AFM. In fact I asked David Worthington shortly after being appointed pro-tem VP to act as vendor contact. This was in an effort to give the vendors the attention they deserved while I still came up to speed.

2. what is the current expenditure for AFM insurance, and what was the previous(last year's) cost ?

3. has anything changed in the supplemental rider medical insurance coverage ?

4. i agree that the afm should be covered in the event of a typical lawsuit situation, and yet i (think i) see that some of the vendors do not have the budget/margin to continue solo. i am not necessarily for the afm subsidizing vendor insurance costs, but is there something the afm can do to assist ? for example, it seems like a reasonable thing to do to make photographers officially work for the club($1/day for dito, 0.50 per day for joe), and be covered under the workers insurance policy. what do you think the best course of action is in order to enable our needed vendors to continue to operate ?

PantyBuncher wrote:2. what is the current expenditure for AFM insurance, and what was the previous(last year's) cost ?

I'll defer because:

a) I don't have the exact numbers since all the policies are handled by the Race Director and some premiums are currently being pro-rated.

b) I don't believe all the details and our costs should be posted on an open forum.

When I get the info I can post the overall year to year cost differences though.

PantyBuncher wrote:3. has anything changed in the supplemental rider medical insurance coverage ?

No. Our PA (Personal Accident) coverage which makes up for 80% of the total insurance cost remained with the old carrier. It was considerably cheaper than what we were quoted by the new carrier. Usually the GL premium is dependent on getting the more lucrative PA portion, but we were able to negotiate splitting of the two policies for the same quoted rate.

PantyBuncher wrote:4. i agree that the afm should be covered in the event of a typical lawsuit situation, and yet i (think i) see that some of the vendors do not have the budget/margin to continue solo. i am not necessarily for the afm subsidizing vendor insurance costs, but is there something the afm can do to assist ? for example, it seems like a reasonable thing to do to make photographers officially work for the club($1/day for dito, 0.50 per day for joe), and be covered under the workers insurance policy. what do you think the best course of action is in order to enable our needed vendors to continue to operate ?

David Worthington will be making recommendations on how we might help compensate vendors for the inconvenience. (vendor fees, advertising, gate fees have been mentioned) Having them under our policy though negates the buffer the insurance company is looking for to begin with. It's the same basic coverage that the IMS show makes the AFM, and every other vendor, carry for standing around talking about bikes. They want to make sure they're covered in case of gross negligence by someone doing business at our event.

Each vendor's premium should be proportional to their exposure to lawsuits. Someone who works on a bike, (tire vendors and suspension vendors) would typically have a much greater premium than say photographer or parts vendor who has no physical contact with a motorcycle. That being said Race Ready has stated they've been quoted rates 3 times higher than most other vendors. He's also mentioned there’s the additional cost of security system(s) to satisfy the binder which is usually for contents coverage so it may not be just for GL. (Although I'm clearly no insurance expert.) Only the GL is being required by our carrier.

AFM #21
Shawn Reilly
AFM President

Hi Shawn,

I can understand your lack of enthusiasm with online communications, but when there are no actual facts, rumors can and will take over. I don't believe anyone wins when this happens.

Obviously in a perfect world all AFM members would come to board meetings, but that clearly won't happen for a variety of reasons.

I know Alex brought up in the January board meeting the idea of using WebEx to allow members to participate in board meetings remotely, but I don't see any further mention of it in the February or March meeting notes. I'd like to hear if you think this is something the AFM should further investigate and when it will do so. If not, what viable alternatives you believe exist to allow/encourage more members to participate in the board meetings?

-Aaron
AFM #828

synfinatic wrote:
I know Alex brought up in the January board meeting the idea of using WebEx to allow members to participate in board meetings remotely, but I don't see any further mention of it in the February or March meeting notes. I'd like to hear if you think this is something the AFM should further investigate and when it will do so. If not, what viable alternatives you believe exist to allow/encourage more members to participate in the board meetings?

-Aaron
AFM #828

The WEBEX idea was brought forth by Alex to help the communications between the membership and the Board. After a live demonstration and review, the board was not convinced that WEBEX was the right solution for the additional thousands of dollars it would cost per year.

The biggest plus for WEBEX is for partcipants in remote locations to see the same document (or software program) which would not normally be easily e-mailed or printed. Board meeting agendas are simple text documents, usually no more than 8 pages, and not programs or document intensive events.

Due to the economy and the losses the AFM took last year we're needing to find better (read: less expensive) ways to do business. So conference calls, audio recordings and town hall meetings were all suggestions at the meeting as alternatives. Despite alternatives offered, the motion remained WEBEX and WEBEX only. Motion died.

I'd be willing to hold another "Town Hall/ Q&A" with the members on a Saturday night at an upcoming race weekend. It's not a full blown Board meeting but a chance to get some questions answered. I know many Board members have family obligations but I think a few would stick around for an hour or two. It's inexpensive and it would give the members a chance to meet and talk to the Board.

Hi Shawn,

I'd just like to echo what Aaron said...I think there are some members for whom it's physically impossible for us to really get out there and participate in meetings. I'm not interested so much in participating, really, as I am in just listening in and having some idea of what's going on in the club. I'm a novice racer and it's hard for me to contribute at the track because I'm too busy running around just trying to make my grid without lighting myself or the bike on fire.

I would really like to contribute off the track though, and get an idea of what it takes to make the club work.

I'd like to see a Town Hall/Q&A if for nothing else to just meet some of the actual board members.

Thanks for stepping into the breech here too

kneedrag wrote:The WEBEX idea was brought forth by Alex to help the communications between the membership and the Board. After a live demonstration and review, the board was not convinced that WEBEX was the right solution for the additional thousands of dollars it would cost per year.

Correction: the WebEx idea was brought forth to take the place of most AFM meetings at Ricky's in San Leandro that nobody attends (other than board members, vintage dude Charlie, Amsoil dude Eric and the occasional appearance by members who are there only for a specific topic). Considering AFM currently pays for board's dinner at Ricky's and mileage reimbursement for board members, WebEx would've eliminated roughly 50% of club's expenses for monthly board meetings. It was not only an attempt to include more members in the running of the club and have more transparency in club's affairs, but also a cost savings ($3-4k per year). "VP level" pricing was approved through my Cisco connections and cost for unlimited meetings with up to 50 participants was less than the cost of a single conference call. Club president stated it was basically "overkill" (quote: "killing an ant with a shotgun") and the rest of the board seemed to be of the opinion that it was more important to see the other board members expressions in a face to face meeting - valid point to some extent, but WebEx came back with the option to just do a three month trial and that didn't fly either.

Currently the #1 qualification for being an AFM board member is simply the willingness to drive to San Leandro one Wednesday evening every month. Don't believe me? Show up at AFM meetings for six months straight and I'll bet you get nominated for a board position. WebEx would've been useful for allowing more members to know what's going on with the club and to take an active role either as board members or volunteers. There are an awful lot of untapped resources and skills that are underutilized because most members can't participate in AFM meetings for one reason or another.

kneedrag wrote:

The WEBEX idea was brought forth by Alex to help the communications between the membership and the Board. After a live demonstration and review, the board was not convinced that WEBEX was the right solution for the additional thousands of dollars it would cost per year.

Obviously I can't speak for everyone, but I'd happily pay an additional fee to be able to participate from home- probably would end up being cheaper then driving to San Leandro, not to mention the time saved.

kneedrag wrote:
The biggest plus for WEBEX is for partcipants in remote locations to see the same document (or software program) which would not normally be easily e-mailed or printed. Board meeting agendas are simple text documents, usually no more than 8 pages, and not programs or document intensive events.

Due to the economy and the losses the AFM took last year we're needing to find better (read: less expensive) ways to do business. So conference calls, audio recordings and town hall meetings were all suggestions at the meeting as alternatives. Despite alternatives offered, the motion remained WEBEX and WEBEX only. Motion died.

Conference calls with 10+ people in my experience are nightmares unless you have a moderator controlling who can talk. If the con-call was listen only and you took questions via email or IM that might work pretty well.

Audio recordings are nice as a historical record, but don't actually allow people to participate since it's passive and after the fact so I don't think it has as much value as the other options.

Side note: the Jan minutes say, "Comments: no motion. To be continued to a later date." so I was under the impression that it was still on the table.

kneedrag wrote:
I'd be willing to hold another "Town Hall/ Q&A" with the members on a Saturday night at an upcoming race weekend. It's not a full blown Board meeting but a chance to get some questions answered. I know many Board members have family obligations but I think a few would stick around for an hour or two. It's inexpensive and it would give the members a chance to meet and talk to the Board.

While I fully support town hall/Q&A at the races, I don't really see how this would prevent or solve this kind of problem. Waiting a week or two between board meeting and race weekend seems like asking for more problems like this since there isn't a 1-2 week delay on internet posts.

Honestly as I see it, the reason the "Ministry of Misinformation" as you put it was so successful was that the Board did such a poor job of timely informing the AFM members of what was going on and why. I think Berto did a good job trying to diffuse the situation, but he had one hand tied behind his back since he didn't feel comfortable discussing the details in public.

I understand that even though the AFM is a not-for-profit, it does interact with other companies which requires a certain level of tact and confidentiality when talking in public. At the same time, racers are a very passionate bunch and have strong opinions- the combination can create interesting challenges.

Anyways, thanks for jumping into the deep end on this one.

Hi Shawn,

Pat Blackburn here from Trackside Moto. There are a few things I do not quite understand. I will try not to bombbard you all at once. I do appreciate the thankless job that you do. I would love to attend the meetings but I live 5 hours away. I am all for the webx deal. It is the only way I could attend regularly.

First off,

Are you saying that Thunder Hill has changed their policy towards minors 16 years old and younger?

If has not changed why did we need to upgrade our insurance for minors?


Being this is a non profit club/organization why would it matter who knew what type of insurance policy we carried? It seems this information should be available to any member who wished to review it.


Are you saying that the tracks are requiring that the AFM carry more insurance than we had in 2008? If so when did this change?

Thanks for your time Shawn, I look forward to getting this cleared up.

Pat Blackburn
AFM #31

Hi Shawn,
I started a question on this forum with some basic questions. In the past we have gotten used to kevin being involved with quetsions here on our forum. Some of us just cant make the meeting due to 100 differnet reasons and excuses. Like Pat said you have a thankless job and most us understand that and appreciate the job you do. Also, most of us are grown up enough not to throw mudd and act like an idiots while in these forum communications. All the comments on this thread are very profesional and i know most of these guys. With that being said we would appreciate "you" being involved with our questions at least here on our AFM forums. I have read some of the info on BARF and do not support alot of the comments said. Thank you for chiming in here and I hope a solution can be come up with that supports us racers. After all, thats what the club is all about right?

tracksidemoto wrote:
Are you saying that Thunder Hill has changed their policy towards minors 16 years old and younger?

Under-16 minors - Yes. This pertained to organizers that purchased THill's insurance coverage. This according to e-mails on Jan 28 and Feb 10.

tracksidemoto wrote:If has not changed why did we need to upgrade our insurance for minors?

We needed to start carrying our own GL to allow under-16 minors to race.

tracksidemoto wrote:Being this is a non profit club/organization why would it matter who knew what type of insurance policy we carried? It seems this information should be available to any member who wished to review it.

Its public knowledge what type of insurance is required. We need to carry both GL and PA. This is whether the track supplied it or we sourced for ourselves. Historically we paid the track to be under their policy.

tracksidemoto wrote:Are you saying that the tracks are requiring that the AFM carry more insurance than we had in 2008? If so when did this change?

The tracks didn't change the limits, we needed to start carrying our own if we wanted minors under 16 to race.

tracksidemoto wrote:Thanks for your time Shawn, I look forward to getting this cleared up.

Pat Blackburn
AFM #31

No problem. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to explain.

Shawn, what happens when an uninsured vendor attends an AFM event? What are the ramifications of such a possibility?

is it true that a webEx or other conferencing tool would provide a net savings to the club at the same time as providing access to a larger number of members ? if alex would stop driving his truck to the meetings, we might even see the price of oil fall.


although an at track meeting may be valuable: a) i personally, am usually pretty busy and b) that does not allow member participation or monitoring of normal, monthly, club business. so, while it may be a good idea(it has been done several times before to varying effect), imo, it should not be considered a replacement for conferencing members into the monthly meetings.

since we know that alex is for the webex, and we know that shawn is against it, and we have heard their comments, can you please fwd us a link to the board meeting notes that tell us what the other board members thought of the concept ? and, also, ask the other board members to clarify their position on the subject here ?