Quote:
Originally Posted by E36ST
The comment about the supposed 'Southen bloc' is an odd one. It's my personal view but I understand that the Canterbury Car Club wouldn't be against such a change. I haven't heard where South Canterbury Car Club & Southland Sports Car Club stand, although with the amount of business that the Tier 1 meetings bring to their circuits then they would no doubt be keen to protect that.
I also understand that as far as voting on MSNZ matters go, each of these car clubs only have 1(?) vote, but so do all of the other affiliated motorsport clubs (individual marque Car Clubs, rally clubs) all have a vote each too and so collectively these far outweigh the opinions & wishes of the circuit operating clubs.
I understand that this is why avgas was banned by MSNZ, because it was the large number of small clubs that thought 'we don't care as this doesn't concerns us but lets vote for it anyway', which caused a major headache for many circuit racers.
|
I think you have correctly identified the basis of a representation problem with the MSNZ structure. There is no differentiation in voting between a small club that may actually have no members who are actively involved in motor sport and a large club who has many active competitors and also puts on competition events - this seems inherently wrong.
There is also the issue of significant active motor sport groups that have no representation at all. For example, the E30 and Open BMW Groups, the ERC Group (Arrows and AES series saloons and sports cars), the F5000s, the Formula Juniors etc. There are literally hundreds of active competitors in these groups with no specific representation at MSNZ because they fail to meet the criteria of being an Incorporated Society - again this is inherently wrong but the hierarchy at MSNZ are either oblivious to the problem or chose to do nothing about it.