USS organization - multihull council

http://about.ussailing.org/Bylaws/Multihull_Council.htm

Article II – Purpose
The purpose of the Multihull Council is to function as authorized and described in Bylaws 202, 222, and 511 of the US SAILING Bylaws, and other provisions of the US SAILING Bylaws and US SAILING Regulations as appropriate. Any conflicts between the US SAILING Bylaws and this document shall be resolved in favor of the US SAILING Bylaws.

The purpose on the Council includes:

1. To promote and support the interests of those who sail multihulls.


2. To provide a forum for those who sail multihulls, as well as manufacturers of multihull boats, spars and sails, to discuss matters of interest and exchange information.

3. To advise and coordinate with US SAILING's committees, councils, directors and staff in matters which affect member organizations.


4. To help develop and maintain handicap rating systems for multihulls.


5. To recommend to US SAILING's Board of Directors the establishment of national championship events and qualifying criteria.


6. To formulate and promulgate safety programs for multihulls.


7. To establish and promote sailing and race training programs which, in part, introduce and expose US SAILING members, prospective US SAILING members and youth to multihull sailing and/or multihull racing.

Is this to be the forum mentioned or is there some other?

No.

The forum is the scheduled meetings of the MHC. The meetings are open to the public.

You make the statement by what authority?

Area C rep currently.

Doesn't sound to me like you have the authority to make the statement.

Mark is a member of the Multihull Championship Committee. I feel he was distinguishing between by - laws and 'assembly' - re the Roman Forum. Now that's a cool place! The Roman Senate building is the same as it ever was.

Pete, let's call your reminder of the MHC By Laws an 'agenda' for business.

To all - let's avoid the 'Coloseum' and the 'Circus.'

Hey Pete, I remember meeting you at the Multihull Council Meeting in Florida.
Caleb

I refer each of you to my initial post:

Article II – Purpose
The purpose of the Multihull Council is to function as authorized and described in Bylaws 202, 222, and 511 of the US SAILING Bylaws, and other provisions of the US SAILING Bylaws and US SAILING Regulations as appropriate. Any conflicts between the US SAILING Bylaws and this document shall be resolved in favor of the US SAILING Bylaws.

The purpose on the Council includes:

1. To promote and support the interests of those who sail multihulls.


2. To provide a forum for those who sail multihulls, as well as manufacturers of multihull boats, spars and sails, to discuss matters of interest and exchange information.

I could just as easily postulate that you don't have the authority to assert the converse (that this is the forum).

I agree with Mark and would add that this internet forum is far too limited in scope.

The "forum" mentioned in the bylaws is a metaphorical one, not a literal one.

Authority???
I am reporting... there is no official bulletin board or forum used by the MHC.

Information is distributed from the Area Reps, Class One design mechanism, smoke signals and any other means that the anyone can think of.

Anything "official" is published on the USSA web site. That is the official repository of any work that the MHC would do. (minutes, recommendations etc)

There is NO BUDGET for the MHC....What it can do is make your voice heard via an official channel to USSA... (Olympic, handiciap, Safety)

For example, the multihull championship committee will be made official shortly, I suspect the information will be published on US Sailing. The MHC will be making their feelings known to the Championship committee (who have to go out and make an event happen).

Who are the members of the Multihull Council and who has the authority to determine the nature of the forum in question?

Short version: Mark is correct (although communication isn't limited to meetings, we are allowed to conduct business by telephone and email).

Note the last sentence of the Purpose paragraph, it defers to the US Sailing bylaws.

Within the US Sailing bylaws, the word forum appears once, as follows:

Bylaw 221 – Status and General Authority
The House of Delegates shall meet at least annually to serve as a forum for members and member organizations to debate and advise the Board on policies, performance, governance, and other pertinent matters.

The Multihull Council is part of the HOD (Bylaw 202, Section 4), so it makes sense for the definitions to match.

There are no electronic forums for any other part of US Sailing, and I am confident that no such use of the term was intended.

As an aside, even if an electronic forum were required, I can absolutely guarantee that this site would not be it...

Hope this helps.

Mike

EDIT: Add this to your Favorites: http://racing.ussailing.org/Multihull.htm. From there, you can click on the Multihull Council link onthe left side, which brings up the current roster.

That's correct as far as it goes, but there is this: "at least annually..."

So you can expand the forum.

My real question is to the nature of USS. Is it an open democratic organization or a tightly controlled autocracy?

This latter form might just be the cause of so much discontent among the membrship.

We are answering MHC questions, as that is our area of expertise, and as you point out, direct authority.

Sounds like you need to pick up the phone and call Gary Jobson. Your questions are valid, but far beyond what we have the authority to handle.

Mike

There is a point on which we disagree fundamentally. The authority is there for the MHC to operate as they see fit.

Make a decision. Is the forum for the MHC open or closed?

Pete, please restate your point and actual question, because it's really hard to follow the twists and turns of your posts, which are now appearing in multiple threads.

You keep throwing stuff out here that you have huge problems with the way US Sailing operates (beyond MHC-specific), and are talking about supporting some sort of court action with money.

I've asked you to provide context on what you want to see us do on the MHC site, and you backed down and said US Sailing is working on your perceived problem, which I read to indicate that you don't have a problem with MHC which you are willing to clearly communitcate or help resolve.

What is it specifically that you want?

Mike

Mike, You have the patience of a saint! (Need to remember that quality for future MHC chairmen)

You guys are like mice on a wheel and Pete is throwing you a piece of lettuce.

Attention.

Hey Pete,
Has your cat ever tried to run away from home, or does it suffer from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?

I haven't backed down on anything. As regards a table of organization, I offered several examples as well as the information that the board of directors is already looking into the organizational structure. Publishing a table before they present their findings is likely to be wasted effort.

I have lots of question! One answer is likely to produce several more questions.

My greater goal is to better understand how USS works. Specifically I want USS to be more open and democratic in its proceedings.

I abhor monoplies. To that end I would like to see USS have to compete for its place as the leader of amateur and Olympic sailing in the U.S. I'm willing to spend a small amount of money in that pursuit. But, since that would take an act of Congress I'm not holding my breath.

In the mean time the same problems keep popping up, especially concerning Alter Cup. I'm wondering why this can't be resolved and looking for a solution.

Pete, you're just trolling in the worst internet sense of the word. You wrap yourself in the mantle of the intellectually curious while, in fact, you're the picture of complacency and inaction. You kick the antpile to see what happens, and promptly wander off when you get bored. I don't have any particular problem with that, but let's not pretend you actually give a crap, okay?

Nonsense.

On that, we agree. You're such a different person on the beach. I like that guy.

I'm not going down this road. My interest in USS is legitimate. I want to know why there is so much discontent and work towards resolving it. If you choose to believe otherwise that is your right.

What’s wrong with lettuce?



Assuming this is a legitimate question, and not an attempt at humor that I am missing...

Attention of whom, exactly, and on what topic?

Since October, we have had:

• Two MHC meetings (one of which was the "Annual Meeting" which face-to-face in Annopolis, and was attended by Jack, Gary, and a large number of other US Sailing officials and staff).
• I have sat down with Jack twice, and Liz once. This is in addition to the direct and impromptu (airport, flight, lunch, etc.) meetings in Annapolis, which also included Lee and a number of Board and HOD members.
• I have had countless email and phone discussions and meetings, one of which resulted in the MHC Alter Cup survey.
• We proposed, and the Board approved, a new Chair for the MCC (Alter Cup committee).

We will be having a MHC spring meeting (teleconference), most likely in April.

I am doing everything that I can to bridge the gaps, but I need specific input on what those gaps are. Jack has been asking the whole time as well, which tells me that he is interested in helping us.


Pete, this post was anything but specific enough to be actionable for the MHC (my comments included here):



Mike

Once an organization's character has been established it is all but impossible to change.

Pete out.

I think I see the problem here. You have an axe to grind that is so big, you can neither see nor handle facts pointing to how we are changing.

Pete, you may choose not to believe this, but I value your opinion just like any other member. However, you need to help us to help you.

Continuing to throw non-actionable, rhetorical gems like this up here will not accomplish that.

Mike

Jeez. I started out by asking if this the MHC forum. From there we arrive at ax grinding.

I guess I have my answer.

To be fair, we didn't go from Post 1 to axes without your help.

I've been trying to be as open as possible, because for every complaint, there is usually something to be fixed.

I am struggling to figure out how we can help you.

Mike

You already did. Thanks.

Having fun yet?

Yes. I learned what I needed to know.

I may be way off on this but I think Pete wants more transparency(publically available info to what's happeneing) and his and other member's opinions to count for something tangible. The survey is a great first step and it will be seen whether the opinions stated in the survey are heeded or whether the survey was just a token with no real meaning. Am I right Pete? I feel the same way and am hoping for the best.
I feel that USS has to be accountable for the past and the slate can't just be wiped clean. The respect and loyalty has to be earned and the survey is a great first step ,if it's used.

Spot on.

My job is to focus on improving things for the future of the MHC, and will try to fix as many issues as possible, but we're going forward.

There is nothing that I can do about the past, particularly if you are referring to decisions made by Gary or the Board. You need to contact them directly.

You are all welcome to join me as we move the MHC forward, but please try not to be an anchor...

Mike

Nothing has changed. If you want to know where you're going just look at the last guy that held your post.

There must be a reason that something so elementary as an organizational table is absent from USS. Their website is confusing. Imo, this is crafted to discourage involvement by the membership while pretending to meet the mandate of public service. There is an inner circle at USS which controls the organization and few outsiders are permitted in.

I feel bad for those who invested time and emotion in something that was never theirs and of which they could never have been a part.

Nothing has changed.

I find the website pretty easy to navigate. The little site-map thingy at the bottom of the home page is really handy.

There's a neat little search box at the top, too.

Not conspiracy,just an autocracy that wants to return amateur sailing to the purview of yacht clubs and ignore the rest of its mandated constituency.

Happily, the majority of catamaran sailors don't care.

Actually Pete, this discussion has brought out a lot of positive comments.

I know.

Earlier, JW "accused" me of not really caring about USS. That's absolutely true! USS depends on volunteers because they're cheap, plentiful and disposable. I would never permit myself to invest emotion supporting an organization I've no vested interest in. I'm a paid up member of USS because they do a good job with rules and race officials. My dues represent good value to me.

What is obvious to me is most sailors don't care about USS because USS doesn't care about them.

The salient point is that organized sailing had little use for catamarans until they proved themselves as a type. With the upcoming AC to be run on Cats, USS will now to try to take them into the mainstream and impose its monopolistic control. That will undoubtedly lead to regulations regarding seaworthiness and in the end, who is allowed to sail and on what. American yacht racing has always been the purview of so called "upper class" yacht clubs. USS is trying to reimpose that superficial standard. Today your membership in USS is voluntary, soon it may be a choice of belonging (if they accept you) or not being permitted to sail at all.

Pete, you and I have been over this before. Back when I sat in Mike's chair, you had this same go and I tried to explain things, answer questions and listen to your concerns. You very quickly lost interest. I saw you do it again with Dave when he was Chair. I'm not "accusing" you of anything; I'm basing my view of your interest on past experience.

There is a difference between losing interest and knowing when you're being stonewalled.

As it happens, USS has prepared special reports regarding three tragedies. They may be found here: http://about.ussailing.org/US_SAILING_Meetings/USS_Reports.htm for those interested in them.

What we see is that USS is an uregulated Federal monopoly and it's shaping up to be a regulatory agency with the Coast Guard as a likely enforcement arm.

Pete,

I have to admit, you win the extremely coveted "Race to the Keyboard in the Morning" trophy for 2012! I know of no one who does it better and no one will be able to match your profound skillset!!

Live long and prosper.

Have you read the report on the Severn River drowning?

I went over it quickly but it seems the girl drowned because her trapeze hook got caught in a position which was difficult to undo.

My assumption is that in ponderous due course someone will go to the trouble of announcing the things can kill you. I have no trouble saying it straight out, trapezes hooks can drown you, convert to the Bethwaite system.

No doubt the Coast Guard will consider these reports, come out with their own findings and eventually the "hook" system will be outlawed. My problem with all that is noone who actually sails will have any input into the matter.

Imo, USS is well on its way to transforming itself into another mindless bureaucracy. That will certainly solve their funding issues. Everytime they need more money they'll simple find something you must buy. Don't be too surprised to find you must attend a USS class for your sailing license or risk getting a ticket. Coming soon to a body of water near you.

The level of conspiracy that you are prophsizing is nothing less than spectacular. If what you say is true, you should be on guard for the black helecopters hovering over your house. USS will not stand to have their agenda exposed and they will stop at nothing to have any potential whisleblowers silenced!!!

I don't know why you'd call it a conspiracy. It is the nature of organizations to expand, USS is taking a logical path toward growth. They will experience less oppostion if they do it quitely. They mention something about their congressional monopoly "giving them a broader mandate to serve the public directly" or some such verbiage.

Have a nice day.

From the horse's mouth: http://about.ussailing.org/History.htm

"According to the original constitution, NAYRU's authority stemmed from consent of its members and member associations over which it exercised jurisdiction in an advisory capacity. Today, its authority comes instead from an act of Congress (the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act of 1978) and a much broader charter to serve America's sailors directly"

The only real change here is they no longer need your consent to serve you.

All right, I think we've all had just about enough of this. I hate to do it, but you leave me no choice: I'm calling in the blue blazers, and they know where you live (although the black helicopters are really more the style of ISAF, so they'll probably just arrive on foot like the mere mortals they actually are)...

Mike

They all ready don't care! I'm well past 30, they'll just wait for attrition to take it's toll.

And soon there will be a movie with Denzel playing Gary Jobson.


No no no, strike that. Christopher Walken will play the evil Gary Jobson and Denzel will play Pete.

Jason Alexander, Denzel is too intense and doesn't have my body.