Actually I would argue that the sanctioning needs more regional control
- with the control point being a person with NO conflict of interest in
the ride schedule. That is the manager of sanctioning for a region
should have no interest in either running rides or vetting rides. It
does not necessarly need to be a director, but if one of the directors
has no conflict of interest there is no reason they cannot serve as the
sanctioning manager.
Lets not throw out the baby with the bathwater here. If there is a
conflict or interest deal with it directly - don't screw up an
otherwise good system.
Rides with national significance, ROC, AERC NC, Pioneer events that
corss regional boundaries, etc., should be handled on a national
level; but all regional rides should be handled on the regional level
by people in the region.
I suspect the statistics will show (I'll look at that later) that in
most regions the vast majority of the riders are from the region the
ride in. The only interest from the national AERC level should be
insuring the integrity of the sport. Hell the AERC can't even manage to
enforce its own rules, why do we want to centeralize sanctioning with
them.
Truman
Steph Teeter wrote:
AERC is more regionally oriented than USEF,
and has more Endurance events, and therefore geography/demography is
very critical when scheduling rides. Each region is different and the
process needs regional input, but not total regional control. There are
too many other (National/AERC) sanctioning issues to be considered.
I think the current sanctioning system that
AERC uses is becoming less appropriate as the sport grows.
