2011 Rule Changes - Fundamental Rule

Discussion in 'Laser Class Politics' started by 154537, Mar 28, 2011.

  1. whitfit

    whitfit Member

    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I agree with the first part - it is hard to tell who is the cause of all of this, and frankly I do not think that the statements of Bruce Kirby and the content in the "Sail World" articles sheds any light on the important issues.

    I am not sure whether the lack of information is being driven by lawyers. Frankly, Heini's last message doesn't seem to be of the type that would have been vetted by a lawyer, but I might be wrong. Or, if it is the case that they are being advised that from a legal perspective, they shouldn't say anything further, then they could say at least that, so we can stop being confused about why we are getting no more information.

    I suppose you are right about the yes vote giving the class more rights, and probably more leverage. However, it seems like a significant investment in strategic thinking/planning is needed here, and I am not sure that has happened. That makes me reluctant to vote yes, even though I am not convinced that voting no is a bad thing.
     
  2. 49208

    49208 Tentmaker

    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    48
  3. Sailorchick

    Sailorchick Member

    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
  4. Deimos

    Deimos Member

    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think the leadership have already made complete fools of themselves by providing none on the information so many have asked for and said is missing. Their failure to discuss puts them in the league of "dictator" rather then "representative". To abandon the vote now would make their unready untenable positions even more open to ridicule.

    I expect them to stick to their guns in their grab for power, why not stuff Kirby as well (question the class leadership should be asking themselves - I can see no reason to stuff anybody and the whole action proposed is disgraceful).

    Ian
     
  5. gouvernail

    gouvernail Active Member

    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
  6. Deimos

    Deimos Member

    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    If the report of the ISAF letter is true, then it is not a "hot off the press" issue (and would certainly be e-mailed as well as posted). So, if true, then the ILCA are withholding very relevant information from the membership - which is a very different matter from just not giving enough information. I would suspect that were this to be the case then the leadership responsible would need to immediately step down as trying to force through a vote whilst withholding very relevant information is a very very big deal.

    Ian
     
  7. jeffers

    jeffers Active Member

    Likes Received:
    31
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Given all of the previous pages and the actions of ILCA, and the national class associations, is it any wonder that apathy reigns at the grass roots of Laser sailing as a class and association membership is the exception rather than the rule unless you do the Open, National or International circuit/regattas?

    From what has come to light today it seems Bruce Kirby is trying to sort out the current issues, taking back the rights is step 1, what he will do next will be inetersting to see. Were it myself (and let us remember that no one here is in full posession of the facts except maybe Bruce as he is likely to have spoken to all concerned parties at some point) I would hang on to them for as long as I damn well could and hope to see major changes before I considered selling the rights on to anyone (including ILCA or any company associated with producing the hulls).
     
  8. Deimos

    Deimos Member

    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I think the class is now in an interesting position (and not an enviable one either). The class has had a vote on a rule change. The vote was straight "Do we change the rules to become ..." and NOT "Do we authorise our leadership do do what they think appropriate". Thus, if the vote was to change the rules the class is obliged to implement that change. The deadline has passed and the proposal/vote was not withdrawn so the leadership are obliged to implement that vote. If the new situation means they have changed their minds they would need another vote to "change the rules back again". Also, because the change was a vote by the membership and that the class is a organisation formed by and representing the membership, the vote is binding whatever the ISAF may think. The organisation is the membership and thus it must do what the membership says it wants. If the ISAF wants different rules then they have to create their own class (maybe an offshoot of the Laser but they can determine their way forward).

    Had the ILCA leadership wanted to include the ISAF then they should have included a "subject to ..." clause in the vote (or maybe checked and obtained ISAF approval first or ...). But they didn;t so the only way to undo any "Yes" vote is for another vote for a change back. Basically, the class has voted and the class officers cannot unilaterally decide to ignore such a vote.

    And were that to happen then questions about credibility start to arise.

    Ian
     
  9. Tillerman

    Tillerman Member

    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Ian - I don't think you have stated the role of ISAF correctly. Within the rules of the Laser Class the process for amending the rules is clearly stated...

    So it's part of the Laser Class Rules that a rule change is not approved unless the ISAF approves it too.
     
  10. Deimos

    Deimos Member

    Likes Received:
    12
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I stand corrected (I got it wrong), but presumable the class officers have already consulted the three non membership bodies and they have agreed it (far easier to consult them than the grief/delays going to the membership.

    But you raise an interesting aspect as, according to the rules you quote (which I am not questioning), everybody who voted online will be having their votes ignored as they have to reply to a postal ballot, in writing to the International Office.

    Ian
     
  11. torrid

    torrid Just sailing

    Likes Received:
    55
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I think the that's the trump card right there. I doubt ISAF will approve it now that Kirby has repurchased his rights.
     
  12. Wavedancer

    Wavedancer Upside down? Staff Member

    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    It looks like we all spend a great deal of digital time IN FUTILITY by commenting on the Fundamental Rule issue because ISAF won't approve it, even if passed by the ILCA membership.

    Still puzzled what the future will bring now that Kirby has repurchased certain rights.

    And what about PSA's plan to spread its wings worldwide (and run LP off the map)?
     
  13. gouvernail

    gouvernail Active Member

    Likes Received:
    17
    Trophy Points:
    38
    It just gets hiliariouser, incompetenter, and absurdier every day.
     
  14. Tillerman

    Tillerman Member

    Likes Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Actually online votes are OK Ian. Although the rule I quote did only mention postal ballots, it has to be read in conjunction with By-Law 7 which says...

     
  15. AlanD

    AlanD Former ISAF Laser Measurer

    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    28
    It's interesting re-reading this thread in light of the current legal actions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Gantt

    Gantt Member

    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Agreed.
     
  17. Wavedancer

    Wavedancer Upside down? Staff Member

    Likes Received:
    137
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Indeed.
    It gives those of us who pointed out that ILCA was treading on thin ice something to reflect on. Unfortunately, I can't feel good about that.

    Here's a racing analogy (well sort of):
    Heini W and Jeff M decided to approach the windward mark on the port layline. Big time regatta with about a hundred Lasers entering the zone on starboard. Heini and Jeff couldn't get out of the way, capsized and caused an enormous mess around the mark. Heini was rescued in due time, but more than a year later, Jeff is still stuck there with his mast in the mud.

    The rest of the fleet sailed on, but got lost on the way to the finish line which, for some reason or other, was reset numerous times by the PRO.

    Finally, even the PRO (named ISAF) didn't know what to do anymore and decided to raise the Abandonment Signal (N).
     
    • Like Like x 1

Share This Page