[kiwi367]

Jack B, on Mar 31 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

The rules modification process is set up so that all the members can email, call, or comment to make their suggested rule changes and/or amendments. I even pulled suggestions from the Forum last fall. The fleet captains were made aware of the proposed rule changes back in December 2009, and voted on the final version in March 2010 when these rules were approved.

Jack, please answer the following questions:

1. Was the membership (not the fleet captains, but the actual membership) informed that changes had been proposed to rule 3.4? If so, when? If not, why not?

2. Does the EC believe that forum posts represent every opinion held within the membership?

3. Did the EC direct the fleet captains to share proposed rule changes with the fleet members? If so, when? If not, why not?

4. Did the EC receive feedback from the membership on the proposed changes? If not, did the EC reach out to members to solicit feedback on the proposed changes?

5. Did the EC tally votes from the members (not the fleet captains) for each proposed change? If not, why not?

6. Does the EC believe the membership (not the fleet captains) has a right to review and comment on rule changes that have been proposed by the TC? If not, why not? If so, why was this not followed for the 2010 rule changes?

Jack B, on Mar 31 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

This Class has been an Owner/Driver Class since it's inception, but that 'loose interpretation' was put to the test in 2009.

I was at the regatta and that is not my recollection. There were two "interpretations" put to the test: One, that the designated helm has to be at the wheel from the prep signal until the end of the race, and two, the definition of "regular crew".

I note that both of these have been clarified in the new rules, and this is good. However, these clarifications did not require any additional re-interpretation of the rules. The actions of the TC and EC in this regard are as if the 18th ammendment (that's prohibition) had gone beyond outlawing alcohol and had instead outlawed every beverage that wasn't water.

So please answer these questions:

1. What feedback did the TC and/or EC receive to indicate rule 3.4 (beyond the need to clarify regular crew and drive the whole race) needed modification?

2. What harm had been caused by having immediate family members as allowed drivers?

3. Why did the TC and EC choose to make the more substantial change?

4. Why did the TC and EC choose not to involve the membership in review and approval of the change?

Jack B, on Mar 31 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

There was a significant amount of time and research involved in this year's rules, and the final version. None of these changes were made without a lot of input from many other owners. If you feel that your voice is not heard, contact someone and get involved. There are positions open. There were also many opportunities before March 10 to have your voice and opinions heard. I respond to every email or phone call I receive, and the Tech Committee will listen and consider any suggestions. But to just offer complaints - without offering an idea or suggestion on how to improve - really doesn't give us much to work with.

Indeed. So significant was the time involved that the EC didn't have any extra time to involve the membership in the process. Please answer the following questions:

1. How many owners provided input on the change to rule 3.4?

2. At what stage did this owner (not fleet captain) input occur (prior to the new rule being drafted, after the new rule was drafted, or both)?

3. Why does the TC and EC believe that "being able to call, email or phone in a comment" equates to adequate input throughout the process?

4. Why does the TC and EC believe that challenging a closed-door process is complaining when prior to 3/30/10 many owners were not even aware that a change to rule 3.4 was being considered?

Jack B, on Mar 31 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

I stand by my belief that an overwhelming majority of the Owners like the final version of the rules.

Really? Based on what? The straw poll in the forum? That would be the one in which the majority of comments (and in fact essentially ALL on-topic comments) support my position that family members should be allowed to drive? Let me refresh your memory on those comments:

"We obviously would need to find a way to deal with the current owners who do not drive as we want to keep them in the class." jdougherty

"I agree that we need to find a way for owners who do not want to drive to stay in the class (or join the class)." Pierre

"I think the choices in this poll don't capture the various options that people are discussing." Claudio

"I think there are some owners that bought in to the class because they do not have to drive the boat, I think we would have to grandfather these owners and have the rule apply going forward. The last thing I want to do is drive owners from the class." jdougherty

"Regarding the owner/driver rule...I fully support the "family" effort. Should your spouse/kids want to drive great!" Aaron

"Owner driver or family member it is..." adamthier

"You want on owner who will back down on racing if we go owner driver it is me. I have sailed for years with the same Corinthian crew on numerous boats and we have always shared the driving. I personally prefer foredeck and sail trim." rediguana07

"3) And what about an event an owner just chooses not to do but his crew would still like to participate in? Again wouldn't it make sense for "regular crew, cat1, class member" to be able to put the boat on the line?" carv

"I do not think anyone wants the owner driver rule to go away, but we would like to accomodate: 1.) owners who do not want to drive 100% of the time" chuck bayer

"A very few owners never steer their boats and as long as a regular crew member (cat 1 ) is the usual helmsman, that is already covered under the existing rules." chuck tango


Jack, I'm not sure I found a single comment that could be construed as supporting the position that you, the TC and the EC have taken on this rule, so would you please be so kind as to post the correspondence you did receive that directly supports the removal of family members as allowable drivers for regional and national regattas.

It took the boat owner who started this fiasco a couple of weeks to back down and do the right thing. Perhaps you, the TC and the EC could re-convene and do the right thing a little quicker than that?



Jonathan.

[kiwi367]

chuck tango, on Mar 31 2010, 09:25 PM, said:

Keep in mind that new partnership owners must "share meaningful ownership". $1 does not fit the class ethic. Family and friends owning these boats does fit the class ethic.
Chuck Norris

Please acknowledge this before continuing (kinda ... what's outlined below is still relevant to the discussion):

mean·ing·ful   [mee-ning-fuhl]
–adjective
full of meaning, significance, purpose, or value; purposeful; significant: a meaningful wink; a meaningful choice.


1. My $1 share is meaningful because I get to share the joy of owning and running the yacht with my Dad.
2. My $1 share is meaningful because it allows me to pursue a purpose of racing with my friends and family.
3. My $1 share is meaningful because $1 is a big deal to me.

Take your pick. Any of them meet the definition of "meaningful ownership" under the 2010 rules.


Jonathan.

[OC 103]

chuck tango, on Mar 31 2010, 09:25 PM, said:

Keep in mind that new partnership owners must "share meaningful ownership". $1 does not fit the class ethic. Family and friends owning these boats does fit the class ethic.
Chuck Norris

Well I think in reality that with the amount of work I do on the boat, we save thousands so, I will use that credit toward my ownership. So now it looks meaningful, but don't worry I am not around this year to even sail, so it is not an issue. Though I like the idea!

[Claudio Martin]

Jack B, on Mar 31 2010, 01:50 PM, said:

I even pulled suggestions from the Forum last fall.

Gee, I thought that WAS the purpose of the forum

Quote

This Class has been an Owner/Driver Class since it's inception, but that 'loose interpretation' was put to the test in 2009.

I thought that it was the 1/2 weight driver part of the rule that was put to the test? Oh, right, there was the stuff that went on before hand also. But the only reason any one might know about the former is from reading Sailing Anarchy since the article on the class site has never been corrected with the final results.

Quote

Regarding Rule 3.7 - meeting minutes showed one person who suggested during the owners meeting that this rule should be looked at. In the months after that, there were no other suggestions made by anyone regarding this, and no other fleet captains or owners suggested it was a problem. If you think it needs re-writing, please offer a suggestion on how it should read and what it should accomplish.

Those would be the minutes that were never circulated to the owners? Hard for people to comment if they don't know the minutes were inaccurate (can't claim they were since it was an owners' meeting, the minutes need to be approved by the owners)

Quote

If you feel that your voice is not heard, contact someone and get involved. There are positions open.

According to bylaws all positions should come open every 2 years and be filled by election. I requested this information from the Class Secretary, as allowed by the bylaws but never received it.

So, the reality for me is that the revised rules probably don't make a difference (except if someone actually insists I need to have the boat in Detroit 48h in advance of the NOOD). But I really don't understand why a draft could not have been posted on the forum - good open communication is usually the best way to avoid conflict. Actually, it is somewhat funny that I'm supporting the guy that crunched my boat in the last race at NA

[Jack B]

kiwi367, on Mar 31 2010, 08:13 PM, said:

Chuck,

Let me get this straight. You support Stuart's assertion that a transparent rule change process produced a good result, and yet at the same time you defend an Executive Committee that has chosen to issue rules changes from behind a closed door. Fascinating.

Surely the antics in Washington of late have taught us that a closed door rule-making process produces nothing but bitterness, resentment and hostility. The Wall St Journal had a great opinion piece today regarding a trial in China that was closed to media, consulate representatives, etc. The gist of the article was that such a closed model weakens the state -- it undermines the trust citizens have that their government is acting properly and speaking truthfully.

The same applies here. There was no reason for these changes to have been made without an open, honest discussion with the entire membership. Drafts of the proposed changes should have been sent (email or snail mail) to all members. Those members should have been given an opportunity to respond. None of this has happened. In particular, the assertion that this message board represents the membership is transparently false. How many hundred boats have been produced? And how many responses did the poll get?


Jonathan.

Jonathan,

To answer you, I received a total of thirty eight rules change requests - either by phone, email, in-person, or what I pulled from the Forum discussions.

If you think it is reasonable to poll all owners, or to expect all owners to respond quickly (if at all) to a proposed change with their opinion, feelings, and vote on it, then tell me: what format should we use (phone, email, snail mail, faxes)?; how long do we give for responses before we move on?; how many ways do we try to contact them?; etc. etc. The Fleet Captains were chosen by their respective fleet members to represent them in the national class. Regardless of whether you like or hate it, just about every organization is set up this way - with advocates and representatives responsible for a larger populace. They were all part of what you purport was the 'closed door' sessions where the rules were presented, modified, modified again, discussed, discussed again, and again, before they were finally voted on. Each fleet captain had a vote when it comes to rule changes.

The information was out there and available way more this year than it has ever been, so if you were unaware of this process or about the proposed changes, you didn't do much seeking.

In closing, while I wish everyone loved all the changes; unfortunately it is nearly impossible to expect that will be the case. We stand by the Rules and the fact that we feel they will best represent the interests and investments of the members of the class. I'm sorry you don't agree.

[JCNH]

The trouble with the new rule 3 in general is that it goes way beyond the owners votes for an owner driver rule and as such needs urgent revision. Instead of simplifying the existing rule it has now become more complex and ambiguous.
The Farr 40 class was mentioned as defining a typical owner/driver class. In fact as the Farr 40 is similar in many respects to the 36.7 their rules should have been considered.
Attached is a pdf of the Farr 40 Appendix 8. It is well written and unambiguous.

I particularly liked...."Owners: The Farr40 One design class adopts the Corinthian spirit of amateurism with an emphasis on the amateur owner driving his or her own boat. Approved owner helmsmen are permitted to drive any Farr 40 One Design boat. Charterers and immediate family members shall be considered owners for the purposes of this rule......."

The new Beneteau rule 3.4 seems to have destroyed the Corinthian spirit and family participation in the Class.

The rule does not cover all ownership possibilities. For instance "my?" boat is registered in my family trust. All of my family are beneficiaries of the trust. Are they permitted to drive the boat? Am I allowed to drive the boat? Does my Lawyer have to drive the boat?

John Histed
Cloud Nine Hull #9
 Farr_40_Class___APPENDIX_8.pdf (59.07K)
Number of downloads: 1

[Jack B]

kiwi367, on Mar 31 2010, 08:45 PM, said:

Jack, please answer the following questions:

1. Was the membership (not the fleet captains, but the actual membership) informed that changes had been proposed to rule 3.4? If so, when? If not, why not?

2. Does the EC believe that forum posts represent every opinion held within the membership?

3. Did the EC direct the fleet captains to share proposed rule changes with the fleet members? If so, when? If not, why not?

4. Did the EC receive feedback from the membership on the proposed changes? If not, did the EC reach out to members to solicit feedback on the proposed changes?

5. Did the EC tally votes from the members (not the fleet captains) for each proposed change? If not, why not?

6. Does the EC believe the membership (not the fleet captains) has a right to review and comment on rule changes that have been proposed by the TC? If not, why not? If so, why was this not followed for the 2010 rule changes?




I was at the regatta and that is not my recollection. There were two "interpretations" put to the test: One, that the designated helm has to be at the wheel from the prep signal until the end of the race, and two, the definition of "regular crew".

I note that both of these have been clarified in the new rules, and this is good. However, these clarifications did not require any additional re-interpretation of the rules. The actions of the TC and EC in this regard are as if the 18th ammendment (that's prohibition) had gone beyond outlawing alcohol and had instead outlawed every beverage that wasn't water.

So please answer these questions:

1. What feedback did the TC and/or EC receive to indicate rule 3.4 (beyond the need to clarify regular crew and drive the whole race) needed modification?

2. What harm had been caused by having immediate family members as allowed drivers?

3. Why did the TC and EC choose to make the more substantial change?

4. Why did the TC and EC choose not to involve the membership in review and approval of the change?



Indeed. So significant was the time involved that the EC didn't have any extra time to involve the membership in the process. Please answer the following questions:

1. How many owners provided input on the change to rule 3.4?

2. At what stage did this owner (not fleet captain) input occur (prior to the new rule being drafted, after the new rule was drafted, or both)?

3. Why does the TC and EC believe that "being able to call, email or phone in a comment" equates to adequate input throughout the process?

4. Why does the TC and EC believe that challenging a closed-door process is complaining when prior to 3/30/10 many owners were not even aware that a change to rule 3.4 was being considered?




Really? Based on what? The straw poll in the forum? That would be the one in which the majority of comments (and in fact essentially ALL on-topic comments) support my position that family members should be allowed to drive? Let me refresh your memory on those comments:

"We obviously would need to find a way to deal with the current owners who do not drive as we want to keep them in the class." jdougherty

"I agree that we need to find a way for owners who do not want to drive to stay in the class (or join the class)." Pierre

"I think the choices in this poll don't capture the various options that people are discussing." Claudio

"I think there are some owners that bought in to the class because they do not have to drive the boat, I think we would have to grandfather these owners and have the rule apply going forward. The last thing I want to do is drive owners from the class." jdougherty

"Regarding the owner/driver rule...I fully support the "family" effort. Should your spouse/kids want to drive great!" Aaron

"Owner driver or family member it is..." adamthier

"You want on owner who will back down on racing if we go owner driver it is me. I have sailed for years with the same Corinthian crew on numerous boats and we have always shared the driving. I personally prefer foredeck and sail trim." rediguana07

"3) And what about an event an owner just chooses not to do but his crew would still like to participate in? Again wouldn't it make sense for "regular crew, cat1, class member" to be able to put the boat on the line?" carv

"I do not think anyone wants the owner driver rule to go away, but we would like to accomodate: 1.) owners who do not want to drive 100% of the time" chuck bayer

"A very few owners never steer their boats and as long as a regular crew member (cat 1 ) is the usual helmsman, that is already covered under the existing rules." chuck tango


Jack, I'm not sure I found a single comment that could be construed as supporting the position that you, the TC and the EC have taken on this rule, so would you please be so kind as to post the correspondence you did receive that directly supports the removal of family members as allowable drivers for regional and national regattas.

It took the boat owner who started this fiasco a couple of weeks to back down and do the right thing. Perhaps you, the TC and the EC could re-convene and do the right thing a little quicker than that?



Jonathan.

Jonathan,
All your different points address the same issue. Suffice to say I had the poll from the Forum leading us to the Owner's wish for an Owner/Driver rule, as well as other owners who voiced their displeasure with someone being able to basically 'charter' a boat for a NA championship. Perhaps we went too far with the rule in trying to word it such that it eliminated the possibility of that happening again.

I will look at the rule written in 2009 and what we have written for 2010. While I will commit to nothing other than that, at this point, our goal is not to damage the fleet in any way. It is to protect, grow, and promote fair one design racing and the interests and investments of the Owners. If it is decided that revising this rule is the best path to doing that, we'll see about doing that.

[Claudio Martin]

Jack B, on Apr 1 2010, 01:25 PM, said:

...

If you think it is reasonable to poll all owners, or to expect all owners to respond quickly (if at all) to a proposed change with their opinion, feelings, and vote on it, then tell me: what format should we use (phone, email, snail mail, faxes)?; how long do we give for responses before we move on?; how many ways do we try to contact them?; etc. etc. ...

The poll posted by Julian had 22 posts, votes, and over 1600 views.
The poll asking about the 1/2 wt rule had 36 posts between Sept 1 - 11, and nearly 2800 views.

I suggest that supports using the Class Forum as an effective and more direct approach to sharing information than infrequent local fleet meetings that may or may not be timely with respect to the Rules change process (e.g. the Detroit meeting in the fall occurred after deadline for rules request submission; I was not able to attend so not sure if proposal was discussed - probably not since it took place early November and presumably the draft was not yet ready).

Just an observation from Lean Methodology for QI - streamline, eliminate waste, ensure all processes provide added value: fleet captains might be able to encourage participation in all aspects, but why add an extra step for distributing and gathering information when it is so easy to do that directly through here?

[chuck tango]

Please keep in mind that the fleet captains are elected by the local owners to represent their voice at the EC meetings with regards to all 36.7 business. This works well in the NE area. If it does not work well in your area, have more discussions will your local fleet captain.

The numbers you quoted for these two polls suggest only a minority of posting owners nationwide (8 or 9 and about 16 for the 1/2 weight credit) involved in the forum. I have had more input directly with owners or at NAC meetings.

by the way, I will vote for you for any EC position you are signing up for. VP?

Chuck Norris

Claudio Martin, on Apr 2 2010, 11:00 AM, said:

The poll posted by Julian had 22 posts, votes, and over 1600 views.
The poll asking about the 1/2 wt rule had 36 posts between Sept 1 - 11, and nearly 2800 views.

I suggest that supports using the Class Forum as an effective and more direct approach to sharing information than infrequent local fleet meetings that may or may not be timely with respect to the Rules change process (e.g. the Detroit meeting in the fall occurred after deadline for rules request submission; I was not able to attend so not sure if proposal was discussed - probably not since it took place early November and presumably the draft was not yet ready).

Just an observation from Lean Methodology for QI - streamline, eliminate waste, ensure all processes provide added value: fleet captains might be able to encourage participation in all aspects, but why add an extra step for distributing and gathering information when it is so easy to do that directly through here?

[carv]

I'm just a grunt but I like what EC / TC have done on 3.x.x and commended them for thinking this through. National and regional events are held to a higher standard as they should be. And they left enough flexibility for local events that will continue to encourage participation and keep the class healthy.
Jeff Carver

[Jack B]

Claudio Martin, on Apr 2 2010, 09:00 AM, said:

The poll posted by Julian had 22 posts, votes, and over 1600 views.
The poll asking about the 1/2 wt rule had 36 posts between Sept 1 - 11, and nearly 2800 views.

I suggest that supports using the Class Forum as an effective and more direct approach to sharing information than infrequent local fleet meetings that may or may not be timely with respect to the Rules change process (e.g. the Detroit meeting in the fall occurred after deadline for rules request submission; I was not able to attend so not sure if proposal was discussed - probably not since it took place early November and presumably the draft was not yet ready).

Just an observation from Lean Methodology for QI - streamline, eliminate waste, ensure all processes provide added value: fleet captains might be able to encourage participation in all aspects, but why add an extra step for distributing and gathering information when it is so easy to do that directly through here?

Claudio,

The biggest problem with the data you provided in those threads is that the Forum is not only Owners, but is also associate members - who do not have a vote. It also reflects only a small minority of the Owners of the Class. It would be unfair to base decisions on comments or opinions voiced here. And if you read threads through, the opinions of the same people sometimes change at will, going from 'for' something to being 'against' it if the criteria changes in the slightest. Not exactly what I feel we can comfortably use for valid arguments leaning either way.

If there is a way to drive Owners to the site so that there could be majority representation thru true 'polling' can take place, I'm all for it. But that isn't happening yet.

[kiwi367]

Jack B, on Apr 1 2010, 02:26 PM, said:

Suffice to say I had the poll from the Forum leading us to the Owner's wish for an Owner/Driver rule, ...

Jack B, on Apr 5 2010, 10:23 AM, said:

The biggest problem with the data you provided in those threads is that the Forum is not only Owners, but is also associate members - who do not have a vote. It also reflects only a small minority of the Owners of the Class. It would be unfair to base decisions on comments or opinions voiced here.

What a difference four days makes. I couldn't agree with your 4/5 comment more, which makes your 4/1 comment all the more troubling. I'm encouraged that you're reviewing the 2009 and 2010 language.

By the way: I'd be happy to get involved with the class more as you requested, but the bylaws currently prohibit me from doing so since I'm only an associate member. If the EC would care to change that, then I'll be the first to step up.

By the way #2: You should check out Survey Monkey. For $200/yr you can create unlimited surveys to distribute direct to owners. I expect that the vast majority of owners have email addresses on file, and for those that don't you can print the survey out and mail it.


Jonathan.