NAMSA?

So Rick...Tell us about NAMSA again.

bump...

I've been poking at the question of NAMSA's role in several recent posts, so far with no sign that anyone knows or cares. Maybe this time...


The following are aimed mainly at Rick and Jake, but would love to hear opinions from anyone -

Do you believe that the objectives that led to the formation of NAMSA are still relevant today?

How would you assess the current effectiveness of NAMSA?

Are there any changes to NAMSA that would make it more effective?

What do you consider to be the biggest challenges facing the sport at present and does NAMSA have a role to play in addressing them?

Are you actively seeking new members and if so what do you see as the rationale for people to join?


Not trying to rattle anyone's cage - just trying to find ways to help out. Cheers,

Mark.

Good question. I think that it is a good idea to have an organzation looking out for cat sailing and helping the sport. Can someone post the NAMSA objectives again?

In light of the olympic debacle, perhaps we should use this as a vehicle to promote the sport as well?

From - http://www.catsailor.com/namsa/namsa.html

NAMSA's goals:

• to create an alliance that will unite all of the multihull sailors and boat classes
  
• provide a strong communication link among all our little "islands"
  
• develop an integrated racing program
  
• give multihulls credibility in the sailing world.
  
• It also will be a completely democratic organization, and every sailor who is a member will have a vote on issues that are important to the whole multihull community. The power of the VOTE is something that we have not had through the most multihull classes, nor through US Sailing.

And NAMSA actions -

• Unify and Chapter all multihull organizations, and classes under one, strong umbrella organization with dynamic and effective lobbying capabilities (This means that such independent groups as CRAM, CRAW, OCRA, TBSCA, CABB, CRAC, SHBCC, MSA, et al.., and classes such as A-Class, Tornado, Nacra, Prindle, Hobie, Wave, Mystere, Taipan, Dart, G-Cat, Isotope, Inter, Supercat, Formula Classes, et al will form a powerful and productive alliance).
  
• Establish an infrastructure for sailing events throughout North America, and Sanction multihull events of all kinds (both racing and fun) around North America. Additionally, NAMSA will sanction and sponsor major championship races, develop a NA Schedule of events for multihulls, and publicize them to all media and to all the sailors.
  
• Offer consultation to questions on sails, sail materials, boat designs, rigging components, construction materials, how-to, etc.
  
• Lobby for beach, lake, open water and launching access, and to address such event organizers that heretofore have barred or banned multihulls.
  
• Offer a Forum for all multihull sailors – a medium of exchange amongst all multihull sailors (large, small, big, old, new, or whatever)
  
• Offer a Forum to bring together multihull manufacturers, dealers, and suppliers in order to have a dialogue with the sailors
  
• Establish a strong Internet presence and website that will be comprehensive and have available all of the services and perks offered to multihull sailors
  
• Establish and make available uniform documents, such as NOR’s, registration and scoring forms, course stickers, etc.
  
• Have a uniform, Windows-based scoring software that can be used by all North American Chapter Members, plus offer tech support and instruction on its use. This software will be able to submit results in a media-friendly format.
  
• Establish affordable insurance programs for NAMSA sanctioned events, as well as group health, auto, boat, life insurance, etc.
  
• Each Chapter (Organization) will have a seat and voice on the Council – each organization will have a say in the issues before NAMSA.
  
• Each Individual Member will have FULL voting rights and privileges – each sailor will have a say in issues before NAMSA. Every sailor will be able to contribute. This is an organization for the sailors and run by the sailors.
  
• Offer a regular news reporting service.
  
• Make suggestions to rating organizations to make a more level playing field for handicap racing.
  
• Have an all-out war on getting multihull Youth Sailing on an even ground with monohull sailing and a good training program for higher level sailing and Olympics.
  
• Train and Sanction Race Officers and Judges with a slant on multihull sailing.
  
• Have marks and signal flags available at reasonable prices.

Let me put it this way. Everytime there is a crises of some sort the need for a unifying organization comes up.
There were a handfull of us that consequently have layed out the groundwork for just such an organization. It is incorporated, has officers, has a constitution.
In other words, it is in place. In terms of a distance race like the upcoming Steeplechase, Tybee 500, Hogsbreath-Keys 100:
the boat is on the beach, sails are up, board in prep position, the gps has all the settings in it, the compass is on. All it needs is crew -- operators!

The few officers that we have held on.., after the firestorms died down and are still there, but fresh blood is very needed -- a transfusion. We pioneered the idea patterned after the original NAMSA of the 60's, but again, the boat needs a crew.

After ISAF declared itself a monohull organization and US Sailing helped them in their cause, and when folks on this Forum started talking of rebelling against US Sailing, I held my tongue. For I caught a lot of flack from a bunch of naysayers telling us the US Sailing is our answer.
Seems they are not, doesn't it.
Despite the hard work of John Williams and many others that are working with him, it seems they would do better if they had an army behind them.
We could build that army.
Rick

Could you elaborate on the NAMSA insurance situation? Insurance is by far our largest expense, and the brutal thing is that the fee is fixed regardless of the number of regattas we put on or the number of entrants. It would be nice to be able to split that expense with others.

Is your fleet incorporated?

Or do you run the finances through your checking account with the fleet name tacked on? (You report the fleet finance interest as income to the IRS).

IF the Sht hit the fan.... the corporation would go down. OR... if it's the latter... You go down.

Now you can go purchase insurance. If you are incorporated, you need your own policy for the corportaton to insure your corporation The rules are that you can't use one of the umbrella's polices of Namsa or Hobie. Your options are purchase through Meyers Brigss, (old guys) or the US Sailing sanctoned guys Gowery Barden Bret. Your corporation and all of the volunteers that you get to run the event are now insured and you and your volunterers were never personally liable. The cost is 350 to 400.

If you are an unincorporated fleet, you as an individual can run the regatta and you can use the Hobie Umbrella policy for hobie events... or now the NAMSA umbrella policy for NAMSA events. They (Hobie class or Namsa class) are incorporated and they buy one of the same two policies. So as long as you and the other volunteees are a members of the class (Hobie or Namsa) ... you can run your event with insurance coverage. Everybody has to be a class member though.

So... when the Sht hits the fan... You still get sued personally ... but you now have insurance.... Once the insurance is payed out... You get to cover any difference personally (homeowners... umbrella policy).

So, its a matter of what comfort level you have with the risk.

Sailors are cheap... but the cost of running the event could be explained to them as 20 bucks for insurance... 20 bucks for the power boats per day. 5 bucks for the trophy... and so on.

One other point, Your PRO was probably trained by US Sailing through one of their programs. These individuals are individually protected with a US Sailing policy BECAUSE they have had the training. (this allows PRO's to volunteer for a club and not have to ask... what is my insurance coverage).

This is one of those things that your US Sailing dues pays for..... Important stuff don't you think!!!

You might say... OK... that's all the coverage that my fleet needs. However, Your PRO and volunteers are only covered for the actions on the water.

If Sailor X, draws a drink from the fleet keg, drops a stick on the head of Kid A and permantly injures Kid A. The parents are suing Sailor X and you and all of your fleet members and the property owner because you failed to manage a dangerous area leading to the kids's injury.

So, often the property owner doesn't want to take on this risk for a sailboat race. SO... your corporation can purchase more insurance for the beach property and if necessary actually list the property owner as insured. (I don't think the Hobie or NAMSA policy covers the beach)

Obviously it costs you more.

Good luck.

Mark

Our unincorporated fleet had Hobie's insurance company fax the Certificate of Insurance directly to the owner of the beach, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. What else would you do?

Our club (MHRA - www.catamaranracing.org) is incorporated, and is fully insured (not through US Sailing, we found it cheaper to buy insurance on our own).

My point is that our insurance policy is essentially a flat fee. If we add a regatta or subtract a regatta our yearly premium does not change. Same as if 10 people or 100 people show up at each regatta. Obviously, this is a problem as our turnout is in decline - the same fee gets spread over fewer people.

Interestingly, if MHRA merged with another organization of a similar size, the same insurance policy would cover both. Thereby, the insurance cost per event is essentially halved.

Perhaps if we joined NAMSA and got our insurance through them, the same economy of scale would apply, hence my question.

Thanks for your response Rick. When you say fresh blood is needed, do you have some particular roles or tasks in mind? Your analogy suggests that everything from President on down could be open for renewal - I'm not certain if that's what you meant.

Are the office holders and committee members indicated on the NAMSA website actually current? Were officers for '08 elected at the '07 annual meeting (I believe that's what the constitution indicates) and who are they? Are there other roles that you think need filling apart from the officers and committee members?

My feeling is that NAMSA has yet to prove its value, though I take your point about the structure being there - that's certainly a positive. I think for it to be successful it needs broad membership, initially just a few clear objectives and some observable activity/progress towards achieving them over some modest period of time, in order to build some credibility and confidence in the value of the organization within our community.

Given that the organization has been dormant for quite a while, I would suggest setting a completely nominal membership fee for one year - I mean like a dollar. The point of membership for just that one year would be simply to allow people to say "yes I'm a multihull sailor and I think there may be value in having a national or NA organization that is working to build and represent our sport. I'm willing to offer my moral support for a year to see whether they can do anything useful." This is really aimed more at polling the community than anything to do with gaining operating funds, but it gives the organization some kind of legitimacy as a representative of the sport, which I think is an important step. For essential expenses I think you could hit the builders for a little sponsorship, especially if you can show that you really do have the support of the community.

Then get some energetic and passionate leadership in there and give them a mandate to be creative and do something to advance the state of the sport. At the end of a year, or maybe two, if they've done something useful to earn the trust of the multihull community, they have justification for going to the membership and asking for a larger fee to provide resources that would allow you to grow the effectiveness of the organization further. Otherwise you conclude there is no reason to go on and just fold.

MarkMT,

You seem to have the passion and the fresh blood and interest to energize the organization. Go for it!

I think that this is backwards. People get involved because they want NAMSA to mean something, they want to be involved and they want to help institute change. It is not that NAMSA needs to prove itself as an organization, but it is us catamaran sailors need to prove that we care, that we are willing to participate in and help plan our own futures. NAMSA has grown and faded over the years in direct proportion to the number of people who were willing to share their time, invest their knowledge and share their skills with others. So what is the point of gearing NAMSA back up if no one becomes involved. It is US, the sailors who need to legitimize ourselves, not the organization.

We are having this debate within CRAM about paying our Golden Anchor dues and forcing all the members to join US Sailing. This has been a no brainer for us the last 10 years or so. To get the cheap US Sailing insurance we must then post a variable entry fee which charges non US Sailing members more than valid members. I am not sure how we are incorporated. We are a non profit orgainzation.

At this time the club is debating where else to get insurance. If we can solve that riddle will no added cost to the club it may sway our leadership to drop out of US Sailing. If that happens, only after our next officers meeting, then I doubt if any individual members would also feel compelled to join. The only individual benifit would be to sail in the Alter Cup. I haven't heard much smack about boycotting that event.

The club has not decided yet. We are only beginning to debate this. Bottom line....if US Sailing does not support us why should we support them? Its the principle of the thing. Kinda like no taxation without representation.

Mark,
You are very intuitive, I appreciate your words.
The infrastucture is there, it needs to be infused with direction and passion.
Due to recent events, NAMSA again comes to be an option for us. It is there and waiting, the officers and leadership can be changed via vote and we can produce a strong representation for multihull sailors.
I look forward to developing NAMSA as a force in the sailing world, it is about time.

We get our insurance through Chubb. It costs us about $1000 per year for up to about 15 events - we currently put on 5-6 events per year and piggy-back on 2 other events. These other events are put on by Yacht Clubs - Monohull people treat us much better than the HCA people. Your mileage may vary.

Hey Tom, I think we agree far more than not. Your comment that we need people to get involved is spot on. Nonetheless, I think there are some practical issues that need to be considered in relation to how to encourage people to get involved and how to maximize their effectiveness.

An organization itself isn't the goal, but just a means to an end. My interest is not at all in "gearing NAMSA back up" if "no one becomes involved". Absolutely on the contrary - I'm interested in the possibility that renewal of NAMSA might actually be a manifestation of people getting involved and encourage some to do so who might not otherwise see an opportunity.

It seems to me that there is a need not only for people to be involved, if that just means working to support the sport in their own club, class or region - incredibly important though that is, but also to work together to advance the sport overall. That requires some form of organization, even if it's purely informal. NAMSA exists, and as such it could be a vehicle to draw people together.

However I also see potential value in having a broad-based membership organization, either directly or through affiliated clubs. Why? For one thing I think a representative organization is more likely to be successful in drawing volunteer activists together. But I'm also thinking that some opportunities to advance the sport may require interaction with a range of parties - manufacturers, class organizations, US Sailing, MHC, UKCRA, ISAF, regatta organizers... Without some form of legitimate connection to the grass roots of the sport, it's difficult to see a group of otherwise isolated enthusiasts being taken seriously.

I think Tom was right on the money. The sailors need to finally get together and back an organization. And NAMSA is the only one available that makes sense.
First of all it is designed to have two type of memberships: Chapter Members and Individual Members
Chapters for Fleets, Divisions, Classes or whatever
Individuals for those not belonging to the above, or do belong and want an extra vote on their own in the org.
NAMSA does have a Forum on this site, where our Treasurer has posted many times our financial position and our membership numbers. The Forum is at http://www.catsailor.com/forums/postlist.php?Cat=&Board=NAMSA
We offered the same insurance the HCA and US Sailing did, yet few took the offer.
Biggest problem is we had a lot of folks bucking the idea and saying we already had the Multihull Council for US Sailing and this would be redundant.
I notice many of those are silent at the moment.., doesn't mean they won't be back shouting again.
The reason we restarted NAMSA (which at one time WAS the GOVERNING BODY of MULTIHULLS in North America) is we could see the writing on the wall. My guess is we were too early. Maybe now is the time.

New Blood? You bet we need new blood. And we need multihull sailors that are absolutely fed up with monohullitis, folks that would like to be treated with respect in the sailing world, people who feel gutted by this last debacle by our beloved US Sailing and ISAF.

The dues by the way were set at $5.., which I know is a lot of money.., 500% over the $1 limit previously mentioned.

As far as new officers and new blood are concerned, get to the Tradewinds which is a NAMSA sanctioned and insured event, attend the meeting, get off your can and do something.
Thanks,
Rick

Hey Rick

I am one of those nay sayers..

Since the NAMSA discussion is raging following the Olympic's mess up.

I might be swayed by anwsers to these questions.

How many NAMSA dues members feel that dues, fund raising etc should go to supporting individual sailors pursuing an olympic program? Is this a likely NAMSA objective?

Should NAMSA pay for a rep to go to the ISAF meeting to Lobby on behalf of all olympic multihull sailors. How do you think they will be allowed into the meetings at ISAF?

Hey Rick, can you clarify please - my understanding is that the January meeting will not elect officers. The way I read the bylaws, elections are held preceding even numbered years and become effective at the AGM in an even numbered year. Am I mistaken?

BTW $5 is perfectly reasonable and very much consistent with the point of the suggestion I made earlier. But this isn't actually what I see on the website. I see $20 - in at least two places. I realize this includes the magazine subscription, so maybe you're saying that $5 of that goes to NAMSA - but I don't actually see that written anywhere. What's the story?

Rick,

Im not sure we have enough volunteers to support both NAMSA and US Sailing MC. Im not talking about the people who will join the organization, Im talking about the people that do the actual work.

I will be happy to volunteer for any multihull organization that has enough involvement to make it work long term, but a number of our more motivated catsailors are involved with US Sailing.

Im waiting to see what the Multihull Council decides to do per the meeting JW has scheduled.

NAMSA and the Multihull Council are not mutally exclusive organizations - in fact, NAMSA is a paid-up member organization of US SAILING which makes a duly-designated representative of NAMSA a full voting member of the Multihull Council. NAMSA hasn't been represented at MHC meetings in a long while, but neither have 99% of the other voting member organizations (see HERE).

I expect that NAMSA keeps its membership current to maintain the insurance program offered by US SAILING (as the Hobie Class does, too). There is nothing wrong with that level of involvement - the current Council ExCom (see HERE) are not the sort of folks that judge anyone's commitment or motives. But as you can see from the ExCom roster, there are two seats open - one of them is about to be filled by Tom Siders and one by Adam Borcherding, both of whom expressed an interest in helping out their Areas. But Brian's point here, that there are not enough volunteers to fill all the positions we would like, is valid.

Of course the MHC and NAMSA have slightly different roles, but I have avoided volunteering for NAMSA until my term with the MHC is up - it begins to look silly when one person is sitting at a table representing seven different multihull "organizations." It begs the question "how organized can they be if they've only got one guy?"

Anyway, the punchline is this - NAMSA? Sure - why not? It is as good an outlet for your energy as any other.

John has it right. You can belong to all the various Multihull Organizations, they each have their place. The important thing is to volunteer and take part.

Tomorrow, as a member of NAHCA, we will have our Division 4 AGM, and plan our schedule for next year. Included will be plans for the Alter Cup Qualifier, and support for our local Youth Teams to attend the US SAILING Youth Multihull Champ in CA next Jan. Mike Hensel, Area L rep and I will discuss US SAILING activites and the Multihull Council.

Mike is also working with the local A Cat sailors and F-18 Sailors to coordinate additional regatta's for their classes.

Standing by to assist NAMSA if they return to an active organization. From Sail Sand Point's position as Seattle's Community Sailing Center, we just want to get more multihull sailors on the water and grow the sport.

Caleb Tarleton
Sail Sand Point, Board Member
US SAILING Multihull Council
North American Hobie Cat Member, since it was founded.
NAMSA,founding member 2001

Bit pushed for time (Seminar starts tomorrow, followed by Wave Nationals), but basically the idea behind NAMSA is to get all the organizations under one, united umbrella. When organizations join NAMSA, there would be key people from all of them that would give us the blood I have been referring to.
Individuals that do not belong to any organization have been accounted for as well and joining would be encouraged by those sailors.
But, imagine if CRAW, CRAM, CRAC, CABB, et al joined hands and worked together, it would a chorus of strong voices. Strong enough that NAMSA would definitely have an audience. US Sailing and ISAF would have to listen.

Rick

From Scuttlebut Europe:
Editorials


The Olympic event selection by the ISAF Council and the America's Cup steelcage death match continue to dominate the editorials this week...

On the ISAF Olympic Selections:

* From Simon Morgan, Former Hobie 16 National Champion and ISAF Worlds competitor, Founder Wildwind Sailing Holidays, and co-incidentally son of Tony Morgan Silver Medallist 1964 Tokyo Olympics, two man Flying Dutchman class:

Since Scuttlebutt Europe's weekend edition much prompted at least some defence of ISAF's controversial decision, (Paul Henderson, Jack Dinelli et al) I would like to follow up their comments:

First of all I can have every sympathy with Mr Henderson's view that it is 'ridiculous to blame ISAF, which is only the structure wherein the votes are cast' - 'ISAF is only as good as the delegates nominated by their National Authorities.'

However, Mr Henderson also writes 'that the process is now open and how each delegate voted is public'. This would perhaps not appear to be the case when analysing the vote of the Council to reject the recommendations of its Executive Committee, when an electronic vote was made and no record of how members voted appears to have been recorded. And no one from ISAF has explained this decision. Why bother having an Events Committee then?

If I am not mistaken, the IOC themselves offer pretty specific guidelines as to how choose Olympic events and this seems largely to have been ignored.

''the following principles should be reflected in the general composition of the Olympic Programme"

"Similar events...should be avoided" - Why then vote for two types of double-handed dinghies for both men and women rather than a single type of Multihull for either men or women?

"Global public and media interest in a sport must be considered as key elements... for these are fundamental elements in the success of the Games" - Why then vote against Multihulls, which are certainly the fastest Event in the Sailing Regatta and in general opinion also the most exciting to watch?

"Weight category events should not be allowed, except for the combat sports and for weightlifting" - Since sailing falls into neither of these exceptions, why vote for an Event, specifically described as 1 Person Dinghy (Heavy)?

Specific guidance for ISAF is given in paragraph 3.1.4,
"In comparison with other individual sports, the Commission noted the high quota and number of events in sailing, in comparison to the low broadcast and spectator appeal" - Why then vote against Multihulls, whose size and speed makes them especially attractive for the new technology of on-board cameras first tried out for Multihull and High Performance Events at the Sydney Games?

"It was noted that the Keelboat class are very expensive boats and demand costly infrastructure for Olympic competition, and for general practice and development in comparison to other classes. Therefore, if the Executive Board recommends the reduction in the number of athletes and events, the Commission believes these reductions could be made through the exclusion of keelboat sailing events" Why then specifically disobey an unambiguous guideline and vote to exclude Multihulls instead?

It has also been mentioned (rumoured?) that a number of representatives on Council voted against the recommendations of their own National Authorities. IF even ONE of these had changed the votes then the voting would have been tied; with two.....a clear cut decision in favour with the multihull would have followed.

My real beef is not with the keelboat class per se, even though that appears to be the second least popular class amongst delegates. It is that is seems totally unreasonable to have two singlehander and two two man dinghies at the expense of the multihulls - and the fact that Ben Ainslie managed to jump from the Laser to the Finn and win Gold in both classes seems to be a very real argument against the necessity for such doubling up.

My real complaint has to be that somehow ISAF's Council members on this occasion, whatever their good intentions, have not represented in any real way the views of their constituents, the sailing public. Perhaps if one good thing will come out of this whole sorry saga it will be a top to toe re-examination of just how Council members are selected and how more true democracy can find its way into top level decision making.

One last point; as of 2030 GMT Tuesday 20th November some 4250 signatures have added their names to the petition to the IOC requesting the re-instatement of the multihull class. While Mr Henderson says that 'all hell breaks loose' every time there is a change of class I severely doubt that decisions by previous Councils have in fact found so much public disagreement.

Furthermore, to put those numbers in perspective (even though I have said that I am not specifically against the keelboat class) those 4250 signatures gathered in 10 days compare with one half of all the Sail numbers issued to the Star class since 1911. Yes folks, the Star was designed nearly 100 years ago ... and we are dropping the multithull! There really can be no wonder why there has been and will continue to be such a furore until this issue is settled in a more sensible fashion.

* Carolijn Brouwer found time from her busy Tornado training schedule in Sydney to write to SailJuice with her views on what happened two weeks ago in Estoril. You could read the frustration between the lines of what Laser Radial sailor Laura Baldwin wrote a few days ago. Here, Carolijn is much more explicit with her feelings. By the way, a quick reminder that Carolijn finished runner-up in the Tornado World Championships this year, showing the men the way round the track in the manliest of weather conditions. So this is a girl who knows what she's talking about:

I was gutted after the ISAF meeting in Estoril. I felt empty, confused and especially useless. I am a member of the Events Committee but at this moment I truly don't really know what I'm doing there and whether it has any meaning.

Of course I'm very disappointed ISAF kicked out the Multihull and is taking a huge step backwards in sailing by not including the High Performance dinghy for Women. They are too scared to take a possible risk and move forward.

But most of all, I am disappointed about the Events selection procedure. The members of the Events Committee have been chosen by their MNAs because they are the so called experts in the issues/areas that involve Events, including Olympic Games and Olympic Event Selection. The normal procedure is that the voting on respective issues that involve Events is done on our Committee and we then put them forward as a recommendation to Council. Council usually accepts our recommendation.

This time however they just chucked it out the window and started all over again. So, what are we actually doing there as an Events Committee if our expertise is not being used anyway? This is really disappointing and to be honest I don't understand what ISAF is doing. It's frustrating being part of it, and having the feeling that you are completely useless. It's not about the sailors, it's about the blazers. So many people have told me already, don't try and understand, it's a waste of time. And I still keep thinking I can make a difference in there.

The past week I have been on the verge of resigning from the Committee. But that would be giving up. We need more active sailors on the committees, not less.

I have a very straightforward, simple and symmetric opinion of how easily we can have only ten events for sailing in the Olympics and still cover the whole range that our beautiful sport has to offer:

- Singlehanded Men/Women
- Doublehanded Men/Women (High Performance)
- Multihull Men/ Women
- Windsurfer Men/Women
- Keelboat Men/Women (matchracing)

It doesn't have to be difficult, it can be easy.

Carolijn's full editorial on SailJuice.com:
sailjuiceblog.com/2007/11/23/catwoman-sharpens-her-claws/

* Yachting Australia has expressed both disappointment and concern over the decision taken last week by the ISAF Council to drop the Multihull from the list of events for the 2012 London Olympic Games. Yachting Australia delegates supported the retention of the multihull event throughout the ISAF Annual Meetings which took place in Estoril, Portugal from 3-11 November.

ISAF was challenged with reducing the number of Olympic events from 11 in 2008 to 10 for 2012 in Weymouth. "To not include the multihull in 2012 is to disenfranchise a large part of the sport of sailing," says Phil Jones, CEO of Yachting Australia and member of the ISAF Events Committee, which recommended that the multihull should be retained. "The speed and excitement of catamarans is a real draw to young people. They are the speed machines of sailboat racing. Whilst there is only a limited number of countries involved in the Tornado Olympic Class, multihull sailing is an attractive and truly global part of the sport."

ISAF has been heeding the clear message from the International Olympic Committee (IOC) over recent years that for the sport to maintain its place on the Olympic Program it must take steps to become more attractive to the media and the public. Changes to the format of the competition have been made and a World Cup Series has been agreed in effort to ensure more regular exposure for Olympic sailing.

"Catamaran racing is fast and comes across as really exciting," says Phil Jones. "The Tornado is one of the most telegenic boats in the Olympic Regatta. The boats are big enough to carry on board cameras and tracking devices that can really bring the contest to life for the viewer. To not have a place for it, or another multihull, is a real step backwards for a sport that has the challenge of building its profile. For us, there was just no focus on the bigger, long-term picture."

Yachting Australia is also concerned over the process by which the multihull was excluded. The ISAF Council voted to change the process recommended for the selection of the events. This meant that there was no "run-off" vote between the Multihull and the Keelboat.

"There was no real discussion over the implications of the change. It altered the fundamental principles of the recommended system." says Phil Jones. "Some consider that the change, which was taken on a motion from the floor, was taken with undue haste. Certainly many around the Council did not seem to appreciate the full implications of the change. Those that used their first vote to support other events may well have backed the multihull over the keelboat had they had the opportunity. This change denied them this opportunity. I am sure that having had time consider the implications, many will recognise that the change, put forward as a mere simplification, was much more than this."

Yachting Australia is concerned over the reaction to the ISAF Council decision. "We understand that some will be very disappointed but the personal and vitriolic attacks that we have seen do nothing to help the cause of those making them. In fact, they only do damage. Yachting Australia does not consider this type of reaction appropriate in any way."

Yachting Australia is considering what further action, if any, can be taken to revisit the decision. "However much we might disagree, if we felt the decision had been properly considered and made with those around the table fully understanding the implications, we would accept it. Obviously we don't consider that this is the case. We shall be discussing the issue with colleagues from other countries and IOC representatives over the next few days before deciding how we proceed."

I think it is time the cat sailors rallied back around NAMSA especially due to the way US Sailing is again jacking the cats around as they did in the 90s when I dropped my membership in response.

Some of the best regattas anywhere were the NAMSA North Americans in the 70s and 80s. Well over a hundred boats of as many sizes and brands that could be assembled would show up somewhere around the country once a year and race for best of the best as well as class awards. Everyone got a look at the wild custom boats as well as the latest designs brought out by manufacturers, yes even the Hobie rep came to show off the H-17 its first year out.

The winning boat often did so because of conditions favorable to that design, or maybe a new design had a nice rating that hadn't been tweaked fully, but everyone had loads of fun.

Unfortunately, in the 80s, I think it was, I, and a few of us on the Board got talked into rolling it up and essentially handing it all over to US Sailing with the promise that they would promote cat sailing on a level we couldn't. Those years were very demanding of me and my time and it seemed like the right thing to do then. As it turned out, it was not, in my opinion, but we didn't have the energy to work it as hard as it needed to be worked.

Dick Blanchard and a few of his contemporaries had run the organization for so many years, and despite some of his detractors, managed to put on great events while continuously tweaking PNs trying to find an equitable formula for as wide a wind range as was possible. Dick was tireless, but that is what it takes to hold such an organization of competing brands together and allow them to become friends both on and off the course.

NAMSA should never have given up, but it certainly should start back up with renewed enthusiasm in light of US Sailing's efforts to define us as irrelevent. I said "us", even though I have not sailed a cat in several years. I still am a big fan of the sport, and cats in particular, and I would love to see catamaran sailing to rebound to the levels we had back in those days.

Dues back then was $15.00 a year as I recall, so $5.00 shouldn't discourage anyone - it is a bargain if you factor in inflation from the 70s and 80s.

Alec, very much agree. I renewed my membership last week and have offered Rick my help to renew the organization. Waiting for some feedback, but I'm hopeful we can get something going.

Sorry I am not completely available. My plate has been quite full with a seminar, followed by the Nationals, followed by the Steeplechase, and then getting out the next issue.
But, I was on the MHC phone meeting last night.

After looking at John's Summary (elsewhere in thise Forum) it seems the idea of a strong body behind them is not of much interest.
As John mentioned it is hard to find bodies to fill positions for them and for NAMSA.., just not enough interested people to go around.
But my thinking is there are numerous sailing groups around the country, i.e., CRAC, CABB, CRAW, CRAM, ORCA, et al. Most of them are going along quite nicely and the only reason that is possible is that within each of those there is a catalyst that keeps things going.
If all of these groups joined NAMSA, NAMSA would inherit a strong bunch of catalystic people that would really make NAMSA strong.
And NAMSA membership was setup to get groups to join, as well as individuals that did not belong to groups.
In order to get NAMSA thriving again, we definitely will need more go-getters.
Rick

Hi Rick -

Thanks for being on the call last night. If you came away with the idea that NAMSA is "not of much interest" then I wasn't very effective in communicating. NAMSA is a voting member of the Council, your input during the discussion was vital, and I hope that NAMSA will remain engaged in the coming months as we make the push to develop and implement the plans we discussed.

Thanks for the reply, John.
You just keep doing the great job you are doing. Hopefully we can rally the Calvary behind you, complete with bugles and horses to ride in as well.
Rick

Continue with the beatings....

My recommendations and offer still stand Rick. Just waiting for you to say go.