Nice empty words. Let me also answer you some of your statements.
I do not think it is the job of VC Tech to substitute my judgement for that of the membership and certainly not for a proposal submitted by a national authority.
2. To answer your question directly, of course I have read all of the proposals submitted during my tenure. What I did not and will not do is rewrite them because I differ with the language or the intent of the proposal or even if I thought I could make it better. I do not presume to substitute my judgement for that of a National Class Authority.
Functions of the IOMICA Technical Subcomitee according with Constitution wrote:
11.2.7. Considering and advising on any change in the IOM Class Rules proposed to the World Council.
As you can see you are wrong again. How was the score of your last mistakes?
I think now we have 4. But in any case, if you thought that your role was different may be it should have been nice to inform owners of your intentions before you run for your position.
RoyL wrote:3. I also believe that for the good of the class, that it is inappropriate for anyone who sells boats and parts (regardless of disclosure) to have final authority over technical matters for our class. Others may disagree. However, I am very concerned that should a manufacturer hold the VC Technical position, any controversial decision will be questioned and cause problems for the class. I can say that of the many manufacturers and suppliers to our sport that I spoke with not a single one thought that it was right for them to serve in the VC Technical post.
I am already wondering how many times are you going to repeat the same song before the elections. But no problem Roy, everybody knows who is Robert and what does he do. He has also explained this question in this forum and our rules take preventive measures in this case.
4. Regarding, RSD, I hope I have made it very clear that I have not questioned its validity. I have immense respect for Jan Diejmo and what he has done and is trying to do.
5. As has been pointed out by many people here, however, RSD has failed to timely hold elections for its officers and per our agreement with RSD there is therefore no properly elected Tech official for IOMICA to deal with. Thanks to Jan, however, should we choose, we have the option to deal with either the last holdover in the RSD Tech position or ISAF Technical. I would prefer ISAF Technical.
Hmm, interesting double opinion that nobody will understand. ISAF RSD is a valid entity and Jan Diejmo (sorry Jan for being in the middle of this post), its Acting Chairman, is a very nice person but the Technical Chairman is the devil. No more comments on this issue.
6. I assume you are not serious in suggesting that I or anyone else is somehow responsible for the failures of RSD because we did not ask our national authorities to ask RSD to timely hold elections.
I thought I made myself clear the first time but I am going to put an example. In my opinion, nobody that did not vote in the Presidentâ€™s election can criticize when things go wrong. So with ISAF RSD is the same, if you thought that the failure of ISAF RSD in calling for the AGM was injuring your democratic principles you should have asked them, directly or through your NCA or DM, to call for the AGM. But if you did not you better now look in another direction exactly in the same way that when you break our IOMICA Constitution.
7. Finally, a personal issue. To suggest that I am in some unspecified way acting to cover up unspecified "mistakes" is just plain and simple wrong.
Now I do not understand. Didnâ€™t I specify the 3 mistakes?
A final consideration. In the 2008 AGM there were 5 proposals to change the Class Rules:
- The GBR proposal about the measurement forms
- The ESP proposal about mast dia.
- The TSC proposal about dual receivers.
- The TSC proposal about rig fittings material
- The ESC proposal about Temporary Certificates
From the above list ISAF RSD disagree with our VC Technical only in the two first. The ESP proposal, that did not pass, and the GBR proposal because is incomplete, as everybody has seen in this forum, so it needs to be â€œfixedâ€