2011 Rule Changes - Fundamental Rule

Like Tracy, I don't understand why most people are assuming, based on uninformed speculation, that LPE are the cause of all this. To balance things up here is some vaguely informed speculation from the opposite direction, hopefully worded carefully enough that I don't run foul of any lawyers... or have they given up watching? I suspect the watchfulness of the lawyers at least partly explains the reticence of Heini, Jeff and co to say very much.

......

At the end of the day a yes vote gives the class association (that's us, the sailors) more control over who builds our boats. How can that be a bad thing, and why are so many people interested in protecting commercial rights of the builders rather than looking after ourselves? Our longer term aim should be to have complete control over our boat, but there are a few more hurdles to jump before then.
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.
 
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
 
http://www.sail-world.com/Australia...r-Class----Contracts-signed--Kirby-back/88802

Has the class in fact been informed by the ISAF that the rule change will not be accepted by the ISAF??

if so, why has the ILCA leadership not yet edited the voting page to include that information??

If not, why has there been no public anouncement that the linked article is false??
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
 

jeffers

Active Member
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).
 
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
 
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.
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...

Amendments to these Rules shall be approved by each
of:
(a) the World Council,
(b) the Advisory Council,
(c) at least two thirds of the membership replying in writing to the International Office of the Class in response to a postal ballot published by the International Office of the Class. Only those postal votes returned to the International Office within 6 months from the date of publication of the rule change shall be valid, and
(d) the ISAF.
So it's part of the Laser Class Rules that a rule change is not approved unless the ISAF approves it too.
 
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...

Amendments to these Rules shall be approved by each
of:
...

(c) at least two thirds of the membership replying in writing to the International Office of the Class in response to a postal ballot published by the International Office of the Class. Only those postal votes returned to the International Office within 6 months from the date of publication of the rule change shall be valid, and
...
So it's part of the Laser Class Rules that a rule change is not approved unless the ISAF approves it too.
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
 

torrid

Just sailing
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.
I think the that's the trump card right there. I doubt ISAF will approve it now that Kirby has repurchased his rights.
 

Wavedancer

Upside down?
Staff member
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)?
 
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
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...

1. For the purposes of Constitution article 17 (c) and
By-Law 1 (Rules) paragraph 29 (c) Postal Ballots
may be published by any of:
(a) a printed document
(b) e-mail
(c) e-mail or a printed document and notice on the
Association's web site.

2. Responses to a Postal Ballot shall be by returning
the Postal Ballot Voting Form by letter, fax, e-mail or
completing a designated web based Postal Ballot
Voting Form.
 

Wavedancer

Upside down?
Staff member
It's interesting re-reading this thread in light of the current legal actions.
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).
 
Top