Club permit for non-Alfas (was Re: New procedure for acquiring a Club Permit renewal/ new applicatio

[Evan Bottcher]

I'm in favour of option 4.  As Victor points out - CPS can be made available to 'full members' only, those who are actually Alfa Romeo owners.

However - I'd suggest this be a guideline, and not something that is checked for every member.  Avoid adding extra labour to the volunteers who administer the club permit scheme.  If significant abuse of the permit scheme within the club is detected then tighten it up.

Nothing sucks the life out of the world like excessive introduction of policies and procedures and discussion papers, especially where there's no proven cause for concern.

[massiveluvbuddy67]

I'm in favour of option 4.  As Victor points out - CPS can be made available to 'full members' only, those who are actually Alfa Romeo owners.

However - I'd suggest this be a guideline, and not something that is checked for every member.  Avoid adding extra labour to the volunteers who administer the club permit scheme.  If significant abuse of the permit scheme within the club is detected then tighten it up.

Nothing sucks the life out of the world like excessive introduction of policies and procedures and discussion papers, especially where there's no proven cause for concern.

+1

Fair to say option 4 with Victor's thoughts as an overlay is where my head is at.

Evan, your last paragraph is very much at the front of mind. Pragmatism over process!

[hmd]

Option 4. slight addition to wording "modern or on CPS or Alfa Race car"

[Evan Bottcher]

Nice 

If we use Victor's suggestion of full member vs associate member then you'd be covered also.

[Frank Musco]

Can some numbers be added to the discussion?, for example...

1. Total Number of AROCA vic financial members, broken down into full and associate?
2. Number of Alfas on CPS?
3. Number of non Alfas on CPS, both for full members and associate?

What are the current rules to be on the AROCA CPS?

I'm in favour of option 1.

[pasey25]

I have another scenario.

I have my Fulvia through the CPS with our club, has been for circa 15 years, since at that time there was no Lancia club accredited for the CPS.

It is a shared ownership car with my brother, 50/50.

Since the Fulvia's rego happens to be in his name our club membership is through his name(per the rules). (at the time, the club refused to let us have a family membership).

He doesn't own an alfa at the moment but I have two.

I am sure we have many situations where cars are registered in different names etc, to suit personal circumstances etc.

If we audited this in the club I suspect we'll find many similar examples.

I'm not sure how the proposals here affect my situation. In the real world I am a paying member of the club and alfa (and lancia owner). I don't expect any changes should affect me.

Adam

[Sheldon McIntosh]

This all seems to have escalated from a pretty simple question, which could have been answered with a yes/no, according to current rules.  Opinions are all very well, everyone has one, but unless there is clear evidence of abuse of the process, why has this even come to this point?

I know long-time members of the club that have never had an Alfa, but joined because of the excellent social and track events, and the camaraderie of like-minded enthusiasts.  Personally, I think it's a possibility in the future that I might be Alfa-less for a short time, but would still want other vehicles on the scheme, and I wouldn't want to leave the club just because I didn't have an Alfa, it's a great club.

As Phil says, pragmatism is the key here.  Unless it's obvious that the scheme is being abused, leave well enough alone.  Our rules on RWC compliance for the CPS pretty much weed anyone out that would want to rort it anyway, and the rules leave the club with no liability.  I think anything other than option 1 would annoy more people than it would placate, and would certainly result in losing more members than gaining.

[pasey25]

Sheldon,

more or less, the opinions garnered support your position. I think that the discussion in the thread reveals that the Option 1, common sense approach should continue to apply.

And for nothing else, whilst cumbersome and anecdotal, it has served that purpose.

[310]

well I have done it again
I now own Alfa 33.
in to work on Wednesday to arrange RWC.
from I could tell it needs a wheel bearing and exhaust
right hand front window does not work.
once RWC that will go on cps.
the hunt is now on for another alfa.

[164Queue]

Just catching up with this discussion.

I have a non-Alfa under CPS, but through that particular car's club, not AROCA. Mainly so I could be involved with their events as well as AROCA's. My Alfa is under full registration.

Whilst supporting Option 1 (any financial member, full or associate, can apply for a club permit for non-Alfas through AROCA), if there is any concern about the CPS being abused by non-Alfa owning members, perhaps the Club could request from any Associate applying for a club permit member a brief, written explanation as to why they aren't applying for their club permit through that car's own club. Any dubious explanation can then be elevated to committee for approval before proceeding. This should weed out the abusers, if indeed there are any?

Jim Picot

[kaleuclint]

I know long-time members of the club that have never had an Alfa, but joined because of the excellent social and track events, and the camaraderie of like-minded enthusiasts.  Personally, I think it's a possibility in the future that I might be Alfa-less for a short time, but would still want other vehicles on the scheme, and I wouldn't want to leave the club just because I didn't have an Alfa, it's a great club.

Excellent point. 

I am all in favour of the pragmatic approach. 

Have to admit I was surprised to see a Ford Telstar on 'H'-plates, but with reflection I can understand why a Suzuki Vitara might be regarded as classic/historic in a broader sense.

[massiveluvbuddy67]

I currently have one car on an AROCA club permit, a Holden. I used it to tow my unregistered sud to track days. Thought it was a great idea? I wanted to put the sud on the CPS, but a roadworthy for a track car in AROCA?  LOL. Guess you have to know someone...? I know of a sud track car that had to go to another car club to get a club permit. LOL again. So disappointing.

Hi Frank,

Pragmatism will always reign over process.

Your car is already in the AROCA CPS scheme, your Holden renewal will be processed without issue.

I have escalated to Ross, Paul B, Anthony and David for advice on processing non-Alfa CPS applications.
Having said that I am keen to elicit feedback from forum members too.

Some options to get the ball rolling...
If you are a financial AROCA member:
1. Any eligible car or motorbike can apply for AROCA CPS?
2. Only Alfa Romeo cars (are there any motorbikes?) can be put on AROCA CPS?
3. You need to have at least one Alfa on CPS to have other non-Alfas on AROCA CPS?
4. You need to have an Alfa (modern or on CPS) to put a car on AROCA CPS?

We have many non-Alfas on CPS already.

IMHO, option 1 may be the easiest to administer.

Option 3 is a suggestion I have put forth but has an element of restriction that clearly adversely impacts well intentioned club members - see Frank's earlier post.

Option 4 was suggested by Brad and, on reflection, could be a good compromise.

Thoughts please? The CPS is a service for club members and I am confident we have enough senior, mature members who will ensure the CPS process is not abused.

Many Thanks
Phil

Colleagues,

I spoke with Ross tonight and the committee are endorsing option 1 for financial full club members.
There is no desire, nor intent, to adversely impact current members.
If a new member application is received with a request for a club permit for a non-Alfa, appropriate questions will be asked about why the Alfa Club and not a club representing the marque of the car in the CPS application.

As ever, each application will treated on a case by case basis.

Best Regards
Phil
Club Permit Officer