2025 AGM Meeting Minutes (final results)

[Josip Marasovic]

To be uploaded soon...

[Bruce Andersen]

may we see the summary and results of the AGM recently completed please

[Steve Landeau]

I'm curious as to why it would take a month to distribute the minutes of the AGM, or at the very least, the results of the voting.
Please post them. There are important issues involved with regards to boat building, and there are quite a few existing boats and projects that are affected.
Thanks,
Steve

[Olivier Cohen]

Steve,

AGM closure was Friday, it's not "a month " before, and as you know we are all volunteers, so Josip has probably better things to do than updating website during the weekend.

Results have been sent by email to all NCAs, please check your secretary.

Regards

[Steve Landeau]

Thanks, Olivier, and apologies for not knowing the schedule. I just remember voting a long time ago!

[Bruce Andersen]

I was able to see the voting results because one of the National Reps sent it to me - why not make the results available to the general membership also?

Now that the CRO vang proposal has been defeated, what happens to the vangs on their boats that are no longer legal?

Back in the Texalium days, there was a very limited grandfather clause that allowed boats with Texalium construction to sail locally but not in Championship Regattas.

Is something similar being considered or will those owners have to modify their now illegal vangs similar to what had to be done when the original Potter vangs were outlawed?

[Bruce Andersen]

Perhaps the new VC Tech could craft an emergency rule change/clarification that would makes vangs/kicking straps do what they were designed to do eg. control the upward movement of the boom and eliminate vangs/kicking straps from acting as unmeasured sail area.

With the defeat of both the CRO and the FRA vang/kicking strap proposals we must fall back on the original vang definition which probably needs to be re-considered to allow only limited deviation from the traditional wire/turnbuckle arrangement.

[Olivier Cohen]

Results online https://www.iomclass.org/blog/2025/12/1 ... ca-report/

[Olivier Cohen]

Bruce, about going or not to an emergency rule change more restrictive, we'll let this to new Exec after January 1st.

[Josip Marasovic]

Bruce, as a first point: please stop misinforming public - all existing vangs remain fully legal, exactly as they always have been, provided they do not breach any existing Class Rule obviously. To sum up again as it seems that it is needed, proposals were strictly intended to introduce new restrictions, and since neither proposal passed (CRO or FRA), no new restriction exists now! In other words, IOM sailors are free to continue using their current vangs just as they did on all IOM Continentals before, on IOM Worlds as well and many other major IOM events worldwide that already finished successfully. Actually, as before, IOM sailors may even build larger ones if they wish, because the rule framework has not changed at all, but this is something that was already discussed before.

Also, in 2024, the majority of 2/3 supported introducing a restriction, but the IRSA blocked that change procedurally (not by standard IOM democratic vote - and it was first time ever IRSA acted against the will of majority of countries like this and decided to stop vote being implemented no matter that majority of nations wanted and voted on new rule already - very important to remember if you are back on this topic again).

In 2025, the votes were split between the FRA and CRO restriction options. Neither reached the required two-thirds majority to pass. However, the CRO proposal still reached 58%, which clearly indicates that a majority of voters consider the mentioned current kicking strap ( now vang ) acceptable. If the membership truly believed stronger restrictions were needed, it is reasonable to assume the FRA option would have attracted much higher support - and that did not happen. Now, feel free to post more of your opinions on this topic on IOMICA forum, it will be welcomed, just kindly stop misinformation as it is damaging general work of our class and also reputation of IRSA which was already fragile from years of not functioning well before.

[Josip Marasovic]

"Dear all,

This is to report on our 2025 IOM ICA AGM held on December 5th, 2025:

Attached on this page you will find a table of the votes and reports of our 38 country NCAs.

A recap report.

You will also find attached our financial report.

This will also be posted on our website forum.



We have received ALL of your feedback, including RSA which rejoined us with a flurry of activities.

We are also very proud to have seen our Event committee able to orchestrate 5 continental championships!
(Vs 3 in 2023.)
European by CRO
Oceania by NZL
Asian by CHI
South Am by BRA
North Am by USA
This was a major accomplishment.
Our next step will take place in GBR with the 2026 World championship in Datchet.
And candidatures for the next round of continentals are open.
I want to report our renewal of a Memorandum of understanding with IRSA.

Concerning your votes:
The new IOMICA bureau of executives is elected with 100%. Thank you to those volunteers accepting that charge.
The special and/or technical resolutions passed except:
The CRO Kicking strap did not pass (when it had passed last year with 2/3 of votes).
The FRA Vang one did not pass either.
The MOU with IRSA passed.
The proposal for levy failed to pass. The feedback was favorable but it needs some fine tuning to be worked on.
A special committee should be volunteered on if we care to see it through in the future and enabling us to put our class in the world’s eyes.

Finally, our population keeps hovering around 5000 boat owners.

Respectfully submitted

With best regards
And wishing you all
HAPPY HOLIDAYS
Michel Roure
IOMICA Secretary"
( please find the attached ballot in PDF here as well:

2025 AGM BALLOT FINAL.pdf

2025 AGM BALLOT FINAL

(216.3 KiB) Downloaded 47 times

)

[Steve Landeau]

Thanks to all that contributed to the AGM. I know it's a ton of work and dedication, we all appreciate your efforts.

[Michel Roure]

Thx Steve
Apologies accepted.
It IS a ton of work to coordinate the voting and activity reporting of almost 40 countries.
Every NCA are doing a great job and need being encouraged rather.
We sure ALL need to pull in the same direction for the best of our class.
Best
Michel

[Bruce Andersen]

Thanks for your service.

Please do not misinterpret my message: Now that both the resolutions regarding vang/kicking strap ring gauge measurement have failed, the rules concerning kicking strap/vangs are confusing.

F.2.3 The function of items shall be limited to what is normally provided by items of their type: historically, vangs control the angle between the main boom and the mast - do they historically increase projected surface area to effectively add sail area?

F.2.4 (d) ... shall not exceed 20 mm in any cross section perpendicular to the axis of rotation: do the the existing "plate" vangs exceed this dimension when measured perpendicular to the axis of rotation?

I'm sure that the new EC understands this and is preparing an emergency rule change to keep it from getting out of hand.

[Josip Marasovic]

Bruce, thanks for correcting yourself now in your new reply and for admitting you are confused by IOMICA rules, that is helpful as there is a big difference to what you wrote initially. However, I am afraid I must be very direct here and tell you that your confusion does not stop there unfortunately, really sorry to be so hard on you, but at this point I really think this mess IRSA made cannot continue like this anymore, especially now that you are even publicly trying to influence new VC Technical with wrong arguments.

Regarding the following:

F.2.3 The function of items shall be limited to what is normally provided by items of their type: historically, vangs control the angle between the main boom and the mast - do they historically increase projected surface area to effectively add sail area? historically, vangs control the angle between the main boom and the mast - do they historically increase projected surface area to effectively add sail area?

- every vang and surrounding parts have some surface, and from old "bare wires" to new ones, you can clearly see increased surface of area, not sure how you missed this, maybe you were too focused on one particular vang and its surrounding parts?! Here is one part that did so exactly:

As you can see increased surface area - just not in the same direction as the other part you are so eager to criticize. There are even more examples of increased surface on other parts which I honestly thought you were aware of by now (being IRSA Chairman and so heavily invested into this subject!)...

F.2.4 (d) ... shall not exceed 20 mm in any cross section perpendicular to the axis of rotation: do the the existing "plate" vangs exceed this dimension when measured perpendicular to the axis of rotation?

- Bruce, again you are returning back TO THE ALREADY DEFEATED argument which IOMICA VC Technical explained to you in last discussion on our forum here not even two months ago. You are simply citing wrong rule here (again!). This rule does not speak about kicking strap (vang) - it was about kicking strap fitting! That is not the same part, really not sure how many times this has to be repeated nor how to rephrase it better for you to clear your confusion around this. You cannot quote rule about one specific part which speaks about different part - otherwise you could use main boom rule to criticize kicking strap?! It also speaks about 20mm limit on ring...

I really hope that the new VC Technical understands this and is maybe even preparing an emergency rule change to help some of you who still have troubles around this part, but if it is based on your opinions here which clearly have some serious issues - then IRSA could do immense damage to IOMICA and create much bigger problem(s). Because, let us refresh our minds, first IRSA failed to follow your own rules and procedures when you were so eager to start all of this - then IOMICA corrected you on that. Then you retracted your initial "letter" after our correction. After that you started this discussion on forum less then two months ago where IOMICA VC Technical answered in details where you made mistakes. Then we see now again falsehoods and even more mistakes. At this point people are surely going to ask themselves what is going on here with IRSA?

If you have lots of energy and time and you want to help, that is admirable indeed, but I do not know how many times do people have to repeat some things that should have already been clear long time ago? Again, sorry for me being so strict on you, but you are not just any IOM sailor who is having hard time understanding some rules - there I would be much more forgiving. You are representing IRSA - and that should mean something!

However, if this subject is finally resolved now and you still have more time and energy - I will also try to be helpful and direct you specifically on internal IRSA matters as there is plenty of conflict of interest going on among your ranks (per your standards - not mine!). As it is several times of more magnitude than potential past one in IOMICA which you tried to point out; what was done so far to resolve this issue in IRSA, which specific actions did you guys to, kindly enlighten me? I hope it is not just that you see it in others, but somehow you miss it among your ranks?

[Bruce Andersen]

Thanks for the scathing rebuke - please know that I am not participating on this forum in my role as Chairman of IRSA, but rather simply an concerned IOM owner of 30+ years so kindly leave IRSA out of this.

I have no ties to the manufacture or sale of these components, so I don't have a commercial interest in this debate. I have however seen the class grow, mature, and thrive over the decades and what is happening with the vang/kicking strap/vang fitting issue is disturbing. It is quietly but inexorably allowing the class rules to creep away from their original intent.

While we debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the issue of how much projected surface area is allowed in the seemingly simple device that is supposed to only keep the boom from lifting is being dissected into minute component features that, while each may have an artificially defined difference, when taken together still perform one basic function.

My hope is that our new VC Tech can look into coalescing the parts of the IOM rules that deal with vang/kicking strap/vang fitting into a single rule that limits this fundamental fitting to its intended purpose and not what it has morphed into.

[Josip Marasovic]

It does not matter if you participate as IOM owner with 100+ years of experience too much if you draw conclusions from wrong sources (again). Also, be mindful that when you were doing it in name of IRSA you were having exactly the same mistake which IOMICA VC Technical already two months ago warned you about, here is his quote from October:

This interpretation is not dealing with vang/kicking strap at all!

- so, that was "IRSA" example, and here we have "personal Bruce" example. As it is clearly visible, there is absolutely no difference.

PS if you pointed out years of experience there to strengthen your claims subtly, that can be read as simple logical fallacy called "appeal to authority" - and also, please don't forget how on this subject you disregarded guidance from guys who are even more experienced, both of them who were working there with legendary Jan Dejmo when class was founded.

I think it is important to call out anything inaccurate as damage was already done and this way we might prevent even larger one to be done in future.

Also, if you do not want to see and admit here your conflict of interest (others in IRSA too), maybe I can write one blog post and share it on Facebook, this subject will maybe continue and it could need more attention, it would be unfair to see it only "on one side" in IOMICA and be silent about it on the "other side" in IRSA. After all, there is no "silenzio stampa" in IOM class no matter that IRSA just introduced blockade of democratic vote in AGM recently, so let us see where will this debate lead us.

I really get you do not like this new part which you attack so vigorously, and that is completely fine, but majority of IOM sailors (countries) already spoken with initial biggest majority last time which IRSA blocked and now again with larger 58% majority compared to what you represent here, so it is clear that people want innovation and that they understand you cannot simply ban something because somebody does not like it, no matter how loud the noise gets. However, it is really interesting to see that even after two confirmations of the will of IOM sailors worldwide, you are still pushing hard against democracy in IOM, one could wonder about motivation behind this indeed.

[Bruce Andersen]

Do you have a vested interest in producing or selling vang/kicking strap/vang fittings that would be negatively affected if the projected area issue was resolved in favor of traditional simple wire/turnbuckle devices?

[Josip Marasovic]

Hey, nice attempt of deflection on my previous reply, let us not answer it at all and simply try to "counterattack"!
If you think that is nice debate, great, look how easy it is for me too (or is it just allowed for one side again?).

PS sure, answer is yes, like half of IOMICA in past decades basically.

[Bruce Andersen]

Not trying to deflect, just trying to make clear to anyone reading this thread that the a vocal proponent of "double duty" vang arrangements that not only control the vertical lift of the boom but also add projected area, is also a major producer and retailer of these vang systems.

This revelation may cause some folks to take the arguments presented with a grain of salt.

[Andrew Crocker]

Hi all,

As the new VC Technical, I have been reviewing the Class Rules having regard to the fine work done by my predecessor, the motions that succeeded at the 2025 AGM, and, of course, those that did not. I have also read with some interest the robust discussions in this thread and elsewhere. However, given that the holiday season is now upon us, I would not anticipate any definitive communication on these matters until the New Year.

I wish all a happy and safe holiday season, and look forward to constructive engagement on these questions in 2026.

Regards

Andrew Crocker

[Bruce Andersen]

Thanks for weighing in. It will be nice to see more interaction and communication with the EXEC on this forum - Facebook is nice but actual conversations on a Forum also have benefits.

Merry Christmas - looking forward to 2026!

[Josip Marasovic]

Thank you, wishing all the best in 2026. to you and your loved ones.