Ding, do we really need to rehash this four years later?
First post: The new committee is viewed as a success by US Sailing. See below for why the format changed (along with lots of other mismanagement of the qualifiers, etc.).
Second post: It's 100% financial. I dropped this goal when Bert reported that it would cost $20,000 to get 10 F-16s.
While I sought out and respect the opinions of the former committee volunteers, had I stuck to demanding that we continue under the old format (and in the unlikely event the US Sailing BOD went along with this), the Hoyt-Jolley fund would be depleted by now, and the event would be dead.
So yes, I'd say working with US Sailing, to keep the championship alive, while being viewed as a cooperative group, is a success. YMMV...
Mike
Found this post looking for something else.
The fact that US Sailing considers the current format a success speaks volumes about US Sailing.
What is the balance of the HJ fund?
Why does the AC have to be every year? Why can't it be held when the funds are there to support it? I know the answer but I want the MHC chair to say it out loud. You're still the chair, right?
Going along with US Sailing's wishes and diminishing the AC into a weekend regatta is just sad and you calling it a success because US Sailing is happy is a huge disappointment. I think you forget who you are supposed to be representing.
So what's the status of:
Safety at see recommendations for long distance offshore multihull races.
A handicap system that reflects the platform updates that have occurred in the last decade... the LAST DECADE!
Clearly going along with US Sailing is not moving these issues forward. Maybe playing nice isn't all it's cracked up to be?
