AGM discussion, Constitution change
Posted: Thu Dec 12, 2013 3:34 amAs folks have been discussing unification lately, some of us have discussed ways to make our Class better. Here's an idea that we've worked on, starting with some ideas from Jon.
This is intended to be an addition to our Class Constitution, slotting in with the Rule Interpretation stuff:
Comments:
This is an alternate to "grandfathering" of previous rules boats, and provides a method to review other kinds of issues besides the older versus newer rule question. The approach here is to review discrepancies in their context, and try to make a process where issues won't have to be a problem that don't concern other folks in a boat's fleet. But, by having the discrepancy noted by the measurer and subject to repeated appeal, there is some pressure (especially if the boat is successful or travels to race with a competitive fleet) to make the boat fully conform to the rules.
This is intended to be an addition to our Class Constitution, slotting in with the Rule Interpretation stuff:
8.2.7.5
There shall be a process for approval of boats that exhibit non-compliant features. For:
a. a minor or isolated hull discrepancy that appears incidental and is not part of an overall attempt to change the hull shape;
b. an experimental or non-standard feature unrelated to the hull shape, which does not make the boat less useful and is accessible to the homebuilder;
c. a re-purposed part from another boat that has been modified as much as its nature will allow to comply with i550 Class rules yet still exhibits a minor non-compliance (especially if the part also shows a substantial offsetting inherent penalty, e.g. a mast that is slightly too long but is heavier than optimum);
d. ???;
event or Fleet measurers shall be permitted to grant a Measurement Certificate for such boat, with the discrepancies noted.
i. Such Certificate may be appealed to the Chief Measurer by any competitor. (Or preemptively, a boat's owner or builder may request this process for a known or planned discrepancy.)
ii. The Chief Measurer shall put the appeal to a vote by the Technical Committee. If the appeal is denied, there shall be no further action and the Certificate remains.
iii. If the appeal is upheld by the Technical Committee, the appeal shall be decided by majority vote of the full Board, who's decision shall remain in effect for a period of two years, after which the non-compliant feature may again be brought up for appeal and review.
Comments:
This is an alternate to "grandfathering" of previous rules boats, and provides a method to review other kinds of issues besides the older versus newer rule question. The approach here is to review discrepancies in their context, and try to make a process where issues won't have to be a problem that don't concern other folks in a boat's fleet. But, by having the discrepancy noted by the measurer and subject to repeated appeal, there is some pressure (especially if the boat is successful or travels to race with a competitive fleet) to make the boat fully conform to the rules.