Proposed Class Rule Changes

Discuss the IOM class rules and interpretations

Moderators: Pedro Egea, jeffbyerley

Brad Gibson
Posts: 35
Joined: 23 Nov 2003, 22:35
Location: GBR 42
Contact:

Post by Brad Gibson » 10 Aug 2005, 11:09

Hi All,
It comes as no surprise to me that all of a sudden, some people think that things aren't right with the rules.
Strange Roy, seeing that IOMICA has seen fit to propose changing them.
Why then hasn't hardly anything been said in open on the forum until now, a few weeks before votes have to be cast?
Probably because we are talking about proposals that were only recently brought to the attention of skippers.
Those that should be more 'open and transparent' include those that seem to spend there time talking in little groups about the rules and why they are wrong and what they would do bla, bla ...but never get to put a proposed rule change to IOMICA via their NCA.
I dont beieve that you can get any more open or transparent than discussing our Class Rules/possible ammendments than here on the Forum as many skippers on this thread have done.


In preceding post's, I have used many examples of what i believe are inconsistancies in our Rules, with comparison drawn against an IOMICA push for a new proposed Rule regarding pigmented fibreglass.

We cant have something that looks like carbon in the hull, yet feel free to use as much carbon as you like in your deck fittings (removable of course).
A mainsheet post can't be black fibreglass if its glued to the hull, but you can have a carbon one if it's removable.
I'm sorry but i just dont see the consistancy. Such inconsistancy leads to suspicion & one to question a proposed Rule's merit.

A look at the nominations put forward for the new IOMICA Executive would show that skippers are willing to let their actions speak.

Cant be more transparent than that!

Cheers
Brad Gibson

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 10 Aug 2005, 12:00

RoyL wrote:Lester: I posted this on the US IOM site, I'm going to re-post it here
Hi Roy

Thanks. Deserves widest attention, I think.
RoyL wrote:First, you say that the issue on the Texalium was already decided and a part of the IOM rules.
Yes. An emergency rule change was made.
Second, you say that even though the issue was decided and a part of the IOM rules, it still needs to be voted on by the class.
Yes. The IOMICA Constitution requires that any "emergency" rule changes must be ratified by the World Council. A good idea, I think.
Third, you have included the voting on this issue with a number of other rule changes that must be voted on as a package and not individually.
Yes. It was out naive belief that the "package" was not controversial, and that giving Tex boats dispensation would not be something that Owners would like to see removed.
Finally, you state that if the class doesn't vote for this package the result will be a large number of Texalium boats will be totally banned.
Well, an unknown number, probably around 10. As I said, currently Tex boats have dispensation due to an emergency rule change. If this emergency rule change is not ratified, then this dispensation is automatically removed.
This frankly doesn't make any sense.
Yes, I can see how it might be taxing... Let me try again. Tex boats have dispensation due to an emergency rule change. If this emergency rule change is not ratified, then the dispensation is automatically removed. If dispensation is withdrawn, all boats with coated glass are illegal as of May 2003.
If something needs to be voted on let me suggest an alternative-- that the class has the right to vote to not ban Texalium
That Texalium is not a permitted hull material has been part of the rules since May 2003. The issue is not that Texalium itself is banned. The issue is that any and all coated glass is banned. I think there are very good technical reasons for this. If you would like to know more, then I'm sure Bruce can explain, because the issue received careful discussion in the World Council last year.

If you feel that coated glass, or a specific brand of coated glass, should be a permitted hull material, then I think you know the procedure.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 10 Aug 2005, 12:02

Ken Dobbie wrote:What is more serious is that rule changes which have not been previously discussed have been lumped into the one package.
Hi Ken

Which rule changes or rule change proposals in the "package", exactly, have not been previously discussed?
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Ken Dobbie
Posts: 173
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 21:01
Location: Hobart, Tasmania. AUS950

Post by Ken Dobbie » 10 Aug 2005, 12:13

Those not noted as already agreed. All others should have been treated separately.

Ken Dobbie

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 10 Aug 2005, 12:15

RoyL wrote:I remind you that one of the original "selling" points made by you for the formation of IOMICA was that it would operate in the "open" and with enhanced member participation.
Hi Roy

Thanks for that, I had almost forgotten... So if the IOM class was not being looked after by IOMICA, how much "open discussion" and "enhanced member participation" do you think we would currently be seeing? A glance at the RSD Web site might help in formulating an answer.
Last edited by Chairman on 10 Aug 2005, 12:20, edited 1 time in total.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 10 Aug 2005, 12:19

Ken Dobbie wrote:Those not noted as already agreed.
Hi Ken

I'd like to take your comments seriously. Could you specifically identify (list) the rule changes, either proposed or agreed, which have not been previously discussed?
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

RoyL
Posts: 707
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 11 Aug 2005, 05:02

Lester: You have raised a number of issues, to respond in no particular order:

Regarding the quetion of class democracy and free discussion of ideas, I think raising the issue of the RSD is an important one.

As I am sure you recall, one of the things promised in Vancouver prior to the formation of IOMICA was that the RSD would shortly no longer have any control over the IOM Class. Now, over two years later, RSD is still in control.

As I remember, pre-IOMICA, under the RSD, a small group of people, acting largely on their own initiative, governed the class.

Today, it seems that a small group of people, acting largely on their own initiative still govern the class. That is, the IOMICA Executive and the Technical Committee seem to be formulating most of the class rules and interpretations on their own initiative and then push them out to the class. To directly quote Lester the IOM Class is being "looked after" by IOMICA.

What is particularly amazing is that these actions are still subject to reversal and modification by the RSD.

Worse, is the fact that all of this is done under a claim of "free discussion" However, those of us who have ever expressed disagreement with an IOMICA Executive policy (either here or elsewhere) know that speaking out usually results in the receipt of a personal note from the IOMICA Executive, suggesting that voicing a different point of view is against the interest of the IOM Class and implying that further disagreement is not welcome.

As to the Texalium issue, I think things are still not being presented in a staightforward manner.

There has to be a way that the class can vote on the rules change package and the texalium questions seperately. They are only tied together because someone, I assume Lester, wrote the voting package that way.

Fact is, there is more than enough time to put to the class the seperate issue of what is the opinion of the class on the following simple questions:1. Was the technical committee correct in banning texalium? 2. If the ban is correct, is the partial grandfathering currently in effect acceptable? 3. If the partial grandfathering is problematic, should all Texalium boats be fully grandfathered for all purposes?

Moreover, should people believe that some of the other issues in the "all or nothing" rules package should be voted on seperately, there is time to break those issues out also.

Finally, just to bring this back to where the discussion started, I strongly urge the rejection of the proposed ban on pigmented fiberglass. It is simply a proposal that causes more problems than it solves.

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 11 Aug 2005, 13:00

RoyL wrote:As I am sure you recall, one of the things promised in Vancouver prior to the formation of IOMICA was that the RSD would shortly no longer have any control over the IOM Class. Now, over two years later, RSD is still in control.
Hi Roy

I have no such recollection. The IOM class is managed and administered by IOMICA. Where an International sailing class, radio or full size, is managed by its Class Association, it is recognised and has approval to do so by ISAF in the case of full size, or by RSD in the case of radio. In both cases, ISAF or RSD reserve to themselves two key functions: the interpretation of any class rule; and the approval of any class rule change.
Today, it seems that a small group of people, acting largely on their own initiative still govern the class. That is, the IOMICA Executive and the Technical Committee seem to be formulating most of the class rules and interpretations on their own initiative and then push them out to the class.
I have no idea how the class could be governed without a small group of people, called the Executive, and another small group of people, called the Technical Sub-Committee (get it right, please) doing the work that is laid down for them according to the constitution and regulations.
What is particularly amazing is that these actions are still subject to reversal and modification by the RSD.
What is so amazing here? These are pretty "standard" quality control procedures as adopted in any organisation -- someone does the work, someone else checks it. In point of fact, RSD has been nothing but helpful and supportive in the technical work of IOMICA. There have been no "reversals" and no "modifications" of the kind you allude to. There have been some pretty detailed technical discussions about what the rules do and do not actually mean, and about what makes sense in terms of dispensation or changing them. All good, important things that ensure rule consistency, coherence, and conformance.
Worse, is the fact that all of this is done under a claim of "free discussion"
What is it we are having now?
However, those of us who have ever expressed disagreement with an IOMICA Executive policy (either here or elsewhere) know that speaking out usually results in the receipt of a personal note from the IOMICA Executive, suggesting that voicing a different point of view is against the interest of the IOM Class ...
What you may have received, as you receiving now, is a note which suggests that the way in which you are expressing yourself is not helping the class. You may also have had a note which suggests that the ignorance you are displaying of constitutional and regulatory aspects of class operation are similarly not helping the class. You are as always more than welcome to express your opinions, and you will not have received a note from me seeking to suppress a different point of view.
... and implying that further disagreement is not welcome
You may have received a number of notes suggesting that a different approach to the issue might better serve your interests and what you see as the interests of the class. Disagreement has never been a problem. It is simply a fact of life, particularly when dealing with rule issues in the IOM class. As I have said earlier, what I find distasteful and disturbing is the way in which disagreement becomes "blame" and witch-hunt, finger-pointing, inuendo, smear, and accusatory. You tell me you have every "right" to ask questions, and so you do. But we know that there are different ways of asking questions and offering opinions, and a number of these ways have no place in reasoned debate.
Fact is, there is more than enough time ...
Please review the constitution and regulations on the procedures. You will find that there are time constraints.
... to put to the class the seperate issue of what is the opinion of the class on the following simple questions:1. Was the technical committee correct in banning texalium?
Sure, this is a question that could be put to all class Owners, via the World Council. It wouldn't make a lot of sense, mainly because it wasn't the TSC which "banned Texalium". And, it isn't a matter of opinion as to whether Texalium is a kind of coated glass not permitted by the rules. No amount of wishing for a truly beautiful deck makes coated glass legal. If you want the class to permit coated glass, work the relevant procedures.
2. ... is the partial grandfathering currently in effect acceptable?
Yes, this is also a question that could be asked, and it is being asked as part of the package of class rule changes. I think you are suggesting that this question be separated out from the package, and be asked by itself. As I've explained, the package was put together as a bunch of stuff that we thought would not be controversial.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Ken Dobbie
Posts: 173
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 21:01
Location: Hobart, Tasmania. AUS950

Post by Ken Dobbie » 11 Aug 2005, 23:58

Lester said:I'd like to take your comments seriously. Could you specifically identify (list) the rule changes, either proposed or agreed, which have not been previously discussed?
I think this issue has got a bit bigger than when I made my original comments. The rule changes I had in mind were those which did not appear to have arisen from an interpretation request, such as the dual rating inclusion.

What I think is now more important is that we move to fix any voting anomalies which could be created by the packaging of a number of changes under the one vote. If a member voting on Resolution 2.1 disagreed with any one change then it would be reasonable to expect that member to vote against the whole. As we now see, this could have very serious implications such as noted for the Texalium issue.

What I propose is that the IOMICA Executive withdraw Resolution 2.1 and that each of these proposed changes or ratification of TC decisions be treated as an individual resolution. Given time constraints this would have to be deferred to a Special WC Meeting.


Ken Dobbie

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 12 Aug 2005, 00:29

Ken Dobbie wrote:I think this issue has got a bit bigger than when I made my original comments.
Hi Ken

OK, I understand.
What I think is now more important is that we move to fix any voting anomalies which could be created by the packaging of a number of changes under the one vote. If a member voting on Resolution 2.1 disagreed with any one change then it would be reasonable to expect that member to vote against the whole. As we now see, this could have very serious implications such as noted for the Texalium issue.
Yes, you make a very good point.
What I propose is that the IOMICA Executive withdraw Resolution 2.1 and that each of these proposed changes or ratification of TC decisions be treated as an individual resolution. Given time constraints this would have to be deferred to a Special WC Meeting.
A useful proposal, thanks. Because resolution 2.1 is already formally on the agenda for the World Council meeting, and because I believe most NCAs have organised their Owner ballot with the three resolutions already listed on their ballot papers, I would not propose a "withdrawal" of the resolution from Owner ballot. I think this should go ahead as planned. Instead, I would suggest that the World Council meeting at Mooloolaba be asked to provide appropriate guidance to the incoming Executive as to how it might proceed with the results of the Owner ballot on resolution 2.1 and the caution that might be necessary. Perhaps this is something that the World Council might be asked to think about in the run-up to Mooloolaba. Then at the meeting, World Council Representatives, or their proxies, could be prepared to make a brief statement to the meeting on what they feel are the views of their Owners. And as you note, it would be likely that a set of Resolutions would thereafter be put forward to a special meeting of the World Council for individual voting.
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Ken Dobbie
Posts: 173
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 21:01
Location: Hobart, Tasmania. AUS950

Post by Ken Dobbie » 12 Aug 2005, 00:48

Because resolution 2.1 is already formally on the agenda for the World Council meeting, and because I believe most NCAs have organised their Owner ballot with the three resolutions already listed on their ballot papers, I would not propose a "withdrawal" of the resolution from Owner ballot.
I don't see the withdrawal of 2.1 as complicating NCA ballots.
I think this should go ahead as planned.
If the resolution is lost there would be complications with the Texalium issue which could be avoided by the withdrawal of the resolution.

Ken Dobbie

MCooper
Posts: 19
Joined: 21 Apr 2004, 19:52
Location: USA #199
Contact:

Post by MCooper » 12 Aug 2005, 04:40

Excuse my ignorance but why could this not be tabled??? Why does it have to be voted on at this particular event only and not at a later time??? This could then be discussed further and the new incoming executive could make a determination on the best way to handle. It seems we are trying to just get a vote done because it is on the agenda. Many board meetings I have attended over the years table issues until more discussion has been done. WHY RUSH THINGS??? Obviously by the reading there are still many factors that have many questions that still need to be decided upon.

We keep forgetting about good old common sense. We all want the best for this class but it seems we are just doing things in a hurry that could affect many in the future and present for that matter. Let's take our time and do it right the first time.

Just wanted to add my two cents...
Good Sailing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/)

Mark Cooper
Ericca USA#199
AC USA#81
Victoria USA#150
Footy # 27
LandYacht

Chairman
IOMICA Chairman
Posts: 1197
Joined: 12 Nov 2003, 21:42

Post by Chairman » 12 Aug 2005, 12:54

Ken Dobbie wrote:If the resolution is lost there would be complications with the Texalium issue which could be avoided by the withdrawal of the resolution.
Hi Ken

Let's run through the Texalium business once more, con brio:

Prior to May 2003 metal-coated glass was permitted in hulls. [1]
The May 2003 class rules made coated glass illegal in hulls. [2]
Some builders did not understand the implications of this. [3]
In August 2004 an interpretation of the class rules confirmed that Texalium was a form of coated glass. [4]
The class association requested, and was granted, an "emergency" rule change which gave dispensation to Texalium boats. [5]
All "emergency" rule changes require ratification at the next meeting of the World Council. [6]
The World Council is being asked to ratify this "emergency" change. [7]
If this emergency rule change is not ratified, then the dispensation is automatically withdrawn.
If dispensation is withdrawn, all boats with coated glass become illegal as of May 2003. [8]

Notes
[1] D.2.1 MATERIALS
(a) ... the hull ... shall be made of and joined using one or more of the following materials:
(1) metal,
(2) wood; wood based products containing only permitted materials,
(3) glass fibres,
(4) gel coat; resin; adhesive; varnish; paint,
(5) film covering materials which may be fibre reinforced,
(6) elastomeric material,
(7) thermoplastic, which may be moulded, containing only permitted materials.

[2] D.2 HULL
D.2.1 MATERIALS
(a) ... the hull ... shall be made of and joined using one or more of the following materials:
(1) metal,
(2) wood; wood based products containing only permitted materials,
(3) glass fibre reinforced plastic,
(4) adhesive,
(5) varnish; paint,
(6) film covering materials which may be fibre reinforced,
(7) elastomeric material,
(8) thermoplastic, which may be moulded, containing only permitted materials.
(b) In glass fibre reinforced plastic:
(1) an external gel coat is optional and may be pigmented,
(2) an external paint coating is optional,
(3) the laminating resin shall be unpigmented,
(4) the reinforcement shall be glass fibre in any of the following forms: roving, tape, chopped strand mat and woven cloth,
(5) the interior shall be un-coated to permit non-destructive examination for verification of the material content.

[3] We understand that, after May 2003, a builder in Portugal produced three hulls, and a builder in Australia built fewer than 8.

[4] Interpretation 2004-IOM-4
“Texaliumâ€
Chairman
IOMICA Executive

Ken Dobbie
Posts: 173
Joined: 26 Nov 2003, 21:01
Location: Hobart, Tasmania. AUS950

Post by Ken Dobbie » 12 Aug 2005, 23:08

Hi Lester
The World Council is being asked to ratify this "emergency" change. [7]
If this emergency rule change is not ratified, then the dispensation is automatically withdrawn.
If dispensation is withdrawn, all boats with coated glass become illegal as of May 2003. [8]
You describe the very complication I referred to.

In the event of a no vote, the new Executive would be left to correct the situation of the disenfranchised boats. For these boats to be again accepted would require another emergency rule change and yet another vote by WC to ratify the ERC.

I remain to be convinced that it was reasonable to group all of the items included as Resolution 2.1, some yes, but not all.


Ken Dobbie

RoyL
Posts: 707
Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 21:03

Post by RoyL » 13 Aug 2005, 01:10

I've got to say that Mark Cooper's post below brings this discussion into focus.

I've always thought "rules" and "procedures" where meant to make things better.

When the rules become an end to themselves or lead to nothing but frustration and disagreement, something is wrong.

Mark is the voice of common sense. Let's just table these questions and start over.

Greg Willis
Posts: 5
Joined: 08 Aug 2005, 23:49
Location: AUS 41

Post by Greg Willis » 21 Aug 2005, 09:51

Skippers,
to date I have reframed from responding to some of the perdantic discussions within this thread but with the up coming elections and resolutions it may be benificial if I give a personal but general opinion on some of these issues. We must be very careful that we do not create a cost esculation in our class by allowing titanium or carbon widgets that provide little benift to our class, alternativly we need to make sure we do note ban material for the wrong reasons. There are some great points put forward here but please remember IOMICA is the voice of those skipper who care to be proactive, the consensious must be reality ( so become involved) IOMICA is your voice, it can do anything that is the consensious of those skippers. Lets not get to tied up in protocal, keep it simple and provide a voice for all. Please visit my thoughts in the admin thread. In my personal opinion I beleive we should be rejecting all resolutions and re think the basis of the administration of our class. Time for a change.
Greg Willis

Post Reply