[Doug Clayton]

I pretty much disagree with this entire thread! The relations between the two clubs has never been better than it is now. We exchange a lot of data and each clubs recognizes and accepts the other clubs Judge qualifications - a Master judge in one club is therefore a Master Judge in the other. However, as Chairman of the MAFCA JSC, we are responsible for how a meet is conducted for our clubs. Since there are some differences in how each club conducts a meet, I believe it appropriate to review and approve any variance for the meet - both for judging the vehicle and following club policy in the processes used.
In this particular case, I read the variances granted by MARC when Dean taped them to his windshield. Frankly, I don't believe a variance was necessary for the items listed on the letter. The is no material in the Guidelines that conflicted with the items installed on the vehicle. Consequently, there was no change to the Guidelines needed or listed on the variance. The information listed was in reality an addition to the Guidelines. By not using the MARC variance letter, the Team Captains were left to use their judgment. Since, the vehicle did not conflict with the language in the guidelines, no deductions would have been made. Until we see the actual score sheets to indicate otherwise, I believe the impact of this event was zero.