An open letter to CAMS affiliated clubs

[User Name]

I found this on another forum, it is very interesting reading, unfortunately I can't up-load the letter as a .pdf file, so I will have to copy it here without the signature.

14 May 2008

CAMS Affiliated Club Contact

via email

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you regarding an issue that is of fundamental importance to the future of Australian motor sport at all levels, in all categories.

Unfortunately for Australian motor sport, the governing body CAMS, is presently being managed to within an inch of its administrative life, by elements of senior management that have no understanding of the disastrous consequences of doing so.

During their respective tenures, the current CEO, Mr Graham Fountain, and CAMS Finance Manager, Ms Sandra Lordanic, have with the complicity of elements of the Board, led CAMS into the administrative decline in the past two years, with that decline accelerating gravely in the past ten months.

Evidence of that decline is manifest throughout the entire organisation:


• This year to date, the Member Services (Licensing) department have failed to meet their acceptable service targets every month. In the first three months, it was less than 70% when compared to the benchmark 95%. In April, it was 35%. This is because the
department has been starved of resources and technology to the point where they are not equipped to process the number of licences required in the most critical time of the year for new competitors. The alarming 35% figure was due to the Finance Manager electing not to replace a key staff member on leave. The response to the issue was to avoid accountability by suppressing the publication of service results on the CAMS website.

• A centralisation of the Event Permit application process to the National Office this year has been so badly project managed that CAMS had to resort to a media communication on the 15th of April to placate valid concerns of event organisers.


• A CEO-led restructure of the CAMS communication department has facilitated the
decline in quality of CAMS’ public communications to the point where the incredibly vague sentence: “The feedback from those that have already had the opportunity to see the proposal is that, it makes a lot of sense; is nothing that wasn’t expected from
such a review; and it is obvious the Board have put a lot of thought into it.”
is apparently acceptable in a communication about the governance restructure; one of the most important communications to the membership in recent history.

• There have been no significant computer system upgrades that contribute to productivity improvement since 2006, due to an apparent cost driven strategic outsourcing strategy. While key licensing systems that were previously stable crash daily, the IT consultants are still getting paid. An IT strategic plan developed over 12 months ago, has made no apparent progress.


• A strategic planning process underway announced no administrative initiatives other than the proposed governance restructure. Consequently, no significant objectives have been achieved. The contrast in progress to the last strategic plan at the same stage is stark.

• Key staff members with significant accumulated experience and specialist ability have been lost, frustrated by a lack of resources and support from the CEO. Less than a third of the staff that worked at the CAMS national office two years ago remain today, a significant loss of corporate memory. Their replacements are largely unfamiliar with the industry and ill-equipped to do the job they were hired to do.

CAMS is in the process of an organisational review which for the first time focuses on issues of governance, organisational design/restructure and consultation with members. In the big picture, this is a much needed restructure. My concern is that there may not be any people of sufficient
skill left within the CAMS administration to manage the process once the restructure is complete.

CAMS has approached a critical time in its 54 year history. A time, which if not handled correctly, will impact on the viability and operation of motor sport in this country for many years to come.

CAMS desperately needs strong, effective administrative leadership to guide it through these tumultuous times. Unfortunately all that the current leadership is delivering is an administration so ill-equipped to achieve its objectives, that before too long, not even a newly restructured Board will be able to repair the damage being caused.

One of the responsibilities required of a board is responsible stewardship: If the CAMS Board wish to fulfil this responsibility effectively then they must take immediate action and address the complete failure of the CEO and Finance Manager to manage the CAMS administration and halt the downward spiral.

The time to fix this is now, and the responsibility lies with the current CAMS Board, to ensure the future of Australian motor sport.

Yours faithfully


Shane Rogers
Member – CAMS National Track Safety Committee

CAMS Information Technology Manager, 2003-2005

[NewsStalker]

To clarify this - WHO has signed the PDF you mentioned? Shane Rogers? If so it explains the slant towards the technology problem although, considering that Shane had a hand in this area before 2006, it is understandable that he would raise any degradation of a system he had a hand in. But - there are bigger problems within CAMS than this.

For example: http://www.msiracing.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21
and this
http://www.msiracing.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20

[Trevor]

I have seen the letter posted elsewhere and it does have Shane Rogers signature attached.

I honestly thought it would take longer for it to appear here - LOL


I didn't read all the stuff on the link you provided, but there is lots of stuff from Bruce Polain and his concerns about Bathurst safety, and it has been around for a while.

[Denosaur]

Sounds to me like the "OLD GUARD" trying to hang on for dear life. And in an organisation and industry like this it is typical.

Especially the fact that they talk about people coming in without 'motorsport knowledge'. You can't have progress if you keep the same old boys club going. Bringing in people outside of the industry does help and have seen it work, and believe that if the sport was to survive in this country, having a mix of motorsport and non motorsport people running the organisation is a good thing.

[Falcadore]

Originally Posted by NewsStalker

To clarify this - WHO has signed the PDF you mentioned? Shane Rogers? If so it explains the slant towards the technology problem although, considering that Shane had a hand in this area before 2006, it is understandable that he would raise any degradation of a system he had a hand in. But - there are bigger problems within CAMS than this.

For example:

If they are more important, then start a thread for it seperate to this one and don't divert the discussion.

[NewsStalker]

Especially the fact that they talk about people coming in without 'motorsport knowledge'. You can't have progress if you keep the same old boys club going. Bringing in people outside of the industry does help and have seen it work, and believe that if the sport was to survive in this country, having a mix of motorsport and non motorsport people running the organisation is a good thing.

This is true of all sports - it's like inbreeding - refuse to accept that anyone outside of your own circle can have more or better knowledge than yourself and ultimately you will simply die.

If they are more important, then start a thread for it seperate to this one and don't divert the discussion.

Divert the discussion? Many of these problems have already been the subject of other threads but, when it comes down to it, they are all part of the same problem.

But this particular problem is not one that many would even consider to be worth discussing (and by many I mean those in the sport, not on this forum) for the simple reason it is a very narrow view of a problem that although it may have the effect of not providing physical licences, there are alternatives and workarounds (otherwise the grids on race track would be, according this article/letter, only 70% of the actual capacity in March and 35% of the capacity on April).

[Falcadore]

Originally Posted by NewsStalker

Divert the discussion? Many of these problems have already been the subject of other threads but, when it comes down to it, they are all part of the same problem.

But this particular problem is not one that many would even consider to be worth discussing (and by many I mean those in the sport, not on this forum) for the simple reason it is a very narrow view of a problem that although it may have the effect of not providing physical licences, there are alternatives and workarounds (otherwise the grids on race track would be, according this article/letter, only 70% of the actual capacity in March and 35% of the capacity on April).

Well, we'll agree to disagree on that one as a circuit issue and members services the only common ground is that familiar four letter initial, and if that was indeed your point then its a massive over-simplification.

70% grid capacity and 35% grid capacity is just as much an over-simplification, and I will suggest that most race drivers apply with plenty of time, drivers long experienced with the delays that occurred since member services was centralised initially a decade or so ago, but that some others people HAVE been left high and dry - unable to race and I know of others who have had to ring CAMS repeatedly, and wait on the line while action is taken.

[NewsStalker]

Maybe it is an oversimplification - but it is NOT a new problem - this issue dates back well before Shane was involved and although it has had a few 'good' periods, it has had many more troughs. The problem is not just with competitors either - official licencing also suffered and suffers the same fate probably even more so whilst a South Australian was involved in the process.