Mornings for me are very busy at the track. By the time I finish mixing fuel, check tire pressures, put on the tire warmers, add fuel to the bike, get suited, etc. there is little time for breakfast. Which leads me to Andy's point about selling scones. A fresh scone and a cup of good coffee would sure make my morning much nicer. Too bad we have this damn insurance fiacso.

In all seriousness though, there have been some rumors that I would like to be cleared.

How many board members are affiliated with Z2 and is the agent who has provided this newly required insurance affiliated with Z2?

The rumors I hear are regarding conflict of interest between the AFM and Z2 so I would like to have this cleared up.

Rich AFM #48

holeshot wrote:Joe, Alex is leaving out an important part: Photographers were not a part of this requirement I believe.

!!! if this were the case, it'd be totally rad! but according to david worthington and myself's emails, it's not the case, and photogs ARE required to have the same-same as everyone else... even if i don't actually VEND anything at the track.

holeshot wrote:Joe, Alex is leaving out an important part: Photographers were not a part of this requirement I believe.

You believe incorrectly, my friend. The "requirement" applied to ALL the AFM vendors, including t-shirt sales, therapeutic massage, photogs, tires, suspension, etc. "All" means "all"...

OK, couple questions directly to AFM board.

1. Will the AFM (and/or it's insurance carrier) allow a service/product provider to operate at the track as a sub-contractor, supplier, or employee of a vendor with the required insurance cert in place if the sub-contractor/supplier/employee receives all compensation directly from the insured vendor only who then collects all monies from all customers for all services provided under their auspices?

2. Will the AFM (and/or it's insurance carrier) allow a service/product provider to operate at the track as a stand-alone vendor if they are covered by an "Additional Insured" certificate for 1M Loss/1M Damage coverage on the insurance policy carried by a vendor who already has the AFM required certificate in place?

3. Is it possible for the AFM to increase/change it's coverage to allow the AFM to issue a certificate to any vendor who requires insurance covering them as "Additional Insured" on the AFM policy? This would assume that all extra costs to AFM are covered by all vendors using this option splitting the extra cost to AFM for this coverage type/level.

4. If all the new insurance requirements are based almost entirely on (or driven primarily by) the need to have under 16 year olds race, why can't this extra insurance requirement be put directly upon any organization requiring the AFM to provide coverage that allows under 16 year olds to race? In other/more words, if the tracks require the AFM to get their own insurance to allow the youngsters to race and everything was fine before the USGPRU deal was cut, with the AFM getting their required liability coverage through the tracks, why can we not go back to the old way for the effected vendors sake and make USGPRU settle this new insurance requirement with the tracks in question directly (BW & T-Hill already allowed youngsters to race IIRC, so to me it looks like Infineon was the only track at issue and USGPRU was not scheduled there this year!)?

Regards,

i'm sure someone will be along shortly to insert the facts (and i could certainly be wrong on this) but in the meantime...it's my understanding that 5 of the 11 board members work for zz.

and yeah, it's true, without any shitslinging, that's a position that no BOD should ever be in. most BOD's would have a conflict of interest policy in place to prevent precisely this, which the afm BOD does not have.

for example, you wouldn't allow 5/11ths of the AMA board of directors to be working for kawasaki, would you ? notice that this says nothing about kawasaki's or their employees actions. it only says as a matter of policy, it is a bad idea to have too many members of the BOD working for the same outside company, whose best interests may not necessarily be coincident with the company under which they are serving as officers. it also doesn't necessarily say that it's a bad idea to have a BOD member who works for kawasaki.

The AFM is not a club. It is a non profit corporation. The "members" elect representatives to act in their best interest. I can not imagine anything more disruptive than a 50-100 person "conference". Nothing. We elect the members to represent us. We don't have webex conferences with the city council, state representatives or US Senators for a reason. Too much static.

The system is awkward and yet it has bumbled along for decades providing some good racing. Let's fix it now so we can all participate and really discover why 125 chefs working together can't cook for shit. Because they spend all thier time arguing. That is why we have elected reps and governing bodies. To sit down and hash out difficult decisions. It's a really shitty system, it just works better than any other.

AFAIK "working for ZZ" means getting some track time in turn for instructing. Most Trackday providers don't pay salaries. I don't see any conflict of interest. And ZZ does not compete with the AFM. Most of its clients are not racers. Same as most other TDPs.

Edit: If the inclusion of the USGPRU kids is costing the club thousands of bucks and forcing vendors out, the solution is obvious.

Ernie wrote: Let's fix it now so we can all participate and really discover why 125 chefs working together can't cook for shit.

if one of those 125 chefs is good I rather have him cook than eat bad food because other chef want to be got to stove first

com3 wrote:

holeshot wrote:Joe, Alex is leaving out an important part: Photographers were not a part of this requirement I believe.

!!! if this were the case, it'd be totally rad! but according to david worthington and myself's emails, it's not the case, and photogs ARE required to have the same-same as everyone else... even if i don't actually VEND anything at the track.

Thanks for the clarification. I recall the discussion we had originally with the board. I've clearly forgotten the resolution.

AC, the ZZ relationships might have some signifigance if there was something relative to a ZZ conflict of interest. In fact, the 6/11 members who are not ZZ affiliated have never expressed any shenanigans sans Alex. Go figure...but that's an empty trail IMO.

GPConcepts wrote:
How many board members are affiliated with Z2 and is the agent who has provided this newly required insurance affiliated with Z2?

The rumors I hear are regarding conflict of interest between the AFM and Z2 so I would like to have this cleared up.

Thank you, Rich, for directly asking the question. Currently 4 of the 11 members of the BOD have an affiliation with Z2. I’m not quite sure how the “take-over” is benefiting Z2, but if anyone has figured it out, I’m all ears!

I don't believe it’s a coincidence that the same people are attracted to both organizations. I truly believe that the people who work at track days generally care about helping others. Why would it be so hard to believe they wouldn’t extend that support to the AFM?

To answer the question, the BOD members that have an affiliation with both organizations are:
Myself
Kathy Reilly - My wife - SF Rider Representative
Jon Forman - Z2 Instructor - SF Chapter Director
Berto Wooldridge - Z2 (afternoon) Instructor - Inc. At-large Director

Don’t forget we’ve also taken over Tech with Ed Shaimas and I’ve dated everyone in T/S. Yup, everyone. Turn workers you're next…

So everyone is clear, in the choice of insurance providers, there are only two. The agent, who I recommended to Barbara, is married to an AFM racer. That racer is also a Z2 instructor. Did that agent get a commission? I certainly hope so for the amount of work they did and in such a short period of time.

This was a very time sensitive policy and if someone was going to get it, why shouldn’t it go to the spouse of an AFM member that supports the club? As stated previously only 20% of the entire insurance requirement was handled by this agent. The other 80% was handled by our old agent who received 4 times more commission. I doubt we’ll ever see any of that money spent within the club though.

In summary, this particular agent:
a - directly supports the AFM
b - understands the motorsports industry
c - is familiar with the particulars of the AFM, which helped expedite the needed policy
d - negotiated on behalf of the AFM to get only the portion of the policy we needed, hence negotiated their way out of 80% of the available commission

Over the years, I've made connections with all the board members in one fashion or another. You stay in the same fish bowl long enough, you get to know all the other fish. Follow the path of supposition far enough and you’ll no doubt find a conflict of interest by every member of the club. The only option would be to elect a board that has no relationships to any members or to the industry.

Since that’s not likely to happen, we expect the BOD member to abstain when they directly benefit from their vote. As a member of the BOD their duty is to the AFM before all other affiliations. The betterment of the club comes first. Implementation and, if need be, enforcement of BOD resolutions second. I don’t currently believe that sentiment is shared by all.

I believe nothing in life is black or white, but shades of gray. Every decision we make is a compromise, and no decision is 100% right or 100% wrong. We try to make choices that have more pros than cons but it’s always a compromise. Those that cannot compromise, or only dwell upon the negative aspects of a choice, are more of a hindrance and only slow progress.

I would expect that if anyone has substantiated facts, not unfounded accusation or hearsay, of a conflict of interest or impropriety, they would bring the details to the BOD immediately. Don’t just fling dung at the screen, do the right thing and bring it to the attention of your elected officials.

AFM #21
Shawn Reilly
AFM President

Shawn,

On the subject of your company and the AFM being a conflict of interest,

What if one of your staff who was also a board member made a motion that directly affected another Track Day company?

For example what if Kathy made a motion that Pacific Track Time should have their NRS CANCELED because Cory Call gets to many fines and might pass on that trait to the new racers?

Would that be a conflict of interest?

If you go around wearing a ZZ jacket at the AFM events as President of the AFM would that be a conflict of interest?

I would assume that you would be interested in promoting the AFM as president of the AFM at an AFM event!

just a few more questions,

Where can I see the demand from Thunder Hill that the AFM needs to increase their insurance policy from that of 2008? If it was in an email as you said can you post it. I do not see where it should be top secret.

Is there a statement/contract from Thunder Hill of the requirements for the AFM to operate at their track? I think this information should be available to the members as any other information should be concerning our nonprofit organization!

Some of this stuff just does not add up. I am making a list and checking it twice just like Santa. This is the starting point, getting your side. Next I will look for any other interested parties take on the subject and if there is a conflict between the different sides then we will have to find out who is in the wrong. As of yet there is no hard evidence showing you in the wrong however there is no HARD evidence substantiating your version of the facts.

If this did not directly fuck up my race weekend then I would not be here spending my limited brain power trying to figure out what went wrong and how we are going to fix it!

And the saga continues,

Pat
AFM#31

Pat:

You seem to be accussing Shawn of something. Why not say what it is? Or are you just fishing?

If you have some smelly fish, trot them out. But please don't insult board members with unfounded accusations.

What if a staff member made a motion that actually was targeted at another track day provider? Well given that we all know there are ZZ affiliated people on the board, there would probably be a HUGE STINK and thirty member calling for resignations. Let's not start a bunch of hypotheticals, this is the same old shit that happens every year. The Board gets accused of some horrible activity and then has to spend time defending its position and SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS DECIDE THAT THEY DON'T NEED THE GRIEF AND DON'T RUN AGAIN.

If you have an accusation, make it. But please don't stir up shit just to stir up shit. I know you are concerned about the insurance issue, and most of us are. It's not just a matter of passing it on, it's a matter of what is the best way to deal with it. Passing it on is not dealing with it.

I see excitement about board decisions every year. And it's the reason a lot of people won't run for the board. It's the reason I will never be on the board of another non profit. I got tired of defending decisions to the members. Who loved to fight for weeks about a meaningless decision to allocate a small amount of funding for something but had zero interest in the hard difficult time consuming decisions that required a lot of work.

I think the insurance issue is a problem, and shutting out vendors is bad. If the cure is to get rid of the kids, then let's get rid of the kids.

and the AMA does not manufacture green bikes.


$1.99, you obviously have an axe to grind. whatever it is, come out with it.

As Shawn stated, things are rarely ever truly black and white

There are 4 board members associated with Z2, and this at the moment is in the forefront of people minds since accusations of conflict of interest have been thrown out, but also consider other affiliations of board members

1 sells Michelin tires

1 is associated with PTT

1 works tech for AMA/DMG. With all the opinions on DMG, maybe he's the guy you should be most worried about

2 of them have a Mach1 motorsports sponsor

and all of us have our own personnel racing sponsors

and I'm sure if I think through it more, I could add to this list and point out additional and specific "special interests" associated with everyone on the board.

The relationships between board members are also not very black and white

take my connections with the rest of the board for example:

I instruct with Z2 (and have known Shawn and Kathy since 1997, long before they were affiliated with Z2).

I race on Michelin tires

When I wanted to buy a new dirt bike at the end of last season, Dave Stanton put me in contact with people at Mach1 and helped get me a good deal on the bike. I also bought a bike from Dave when he was associated with Suzuki of Oakland. and Dave has helped me out more than anyone else with riding at Sand Hill and playing on the minibikes.

When Jason Butler managed a bar in Palo Alto a number of years back, he often gave me drinks on the house.

I met Tom and Grace Dorsey when I joined the AFM in 1996, they have been and continue to be, both good friends and mentors for me.

I have not known Dave Worthington and Berto as long as the others, but after interacting with them both at the track and on the board, they too have become friends of mine.

so, one could read into this and think there are reasons why I could or would side with any one of those board members on a given issue (and I have voted both with and against various subsets of them on a number of specific issues)

To take Pat's example of Kathy making a motion against PTT, how would this be different than Jason making a motion against Z2? The example sounds like a conflict of issue, but if this really happened it would be prudent to understand all the facts and reasons why such a motion is being brought up. If there were compelling reasons for action due to inappropriate behavior and strong evidence from outside the board, perhaps action would be warranted (and if it was really that bad, it might come from more than a single board member as well as board members without conflicting interests). If it was simply one board member trying to benefit his/herself, I think the current (and former and future) board would be objective enough to see through it.

I am glad Shawn started this thread and I hope some good can come out of it. When the posts start becoming contentious, I don't think it benefits any of us.

Come on people... Accusing individual BOD members or the entire BOD of making a bad decision, poor communication or just not planning ahead enough is one thing. Accusing or just insinuating they're corrupt or otherwise acting improperly is completely another and not constructive. The only people making money off this deal are the insurance companies unless you have some PROOF otherwise.

I'd much rather we keep the tone professional so to encourage the rest of the BOD to post their opinions rather then give them excuses to stay on the sidelines.

That said, I'm a bit concerned that not even all BOD members seem to be on the same page. At least one believed certain vendors were excluded from getting coverage and there seems to be conflicting statements regarding exactly why vendors now are required to have coverage.

When I started hearing that this whole situation was possibly related to allowing the kids to ride at an AFM event I wondered how long it would take before someone called for removing the kids from the equation. Honestly, I think it's easy for us adults to argue for that since none of us are getting any younger, but I don't want the AFM to do to the kids what KTM did to the Red Bull Rookies Cup.

Shawn correct me if I'm wrong:
This really isn't about the USGRPU, but rather the moment we allow a single under 16 racer such as Elena Myers onto the track. Hence we'd have to ban ALL under 16 racers, not just the USGPRU to avoid requiring vendors to carry the additional insurance.

Moved to new thread