Preface to Comments on Ballot Motions

[Rick West]

Preface
How did the two motions before the class get started after years of smooth sailing?

All of this started with the class members desiring to reduce the time required at the Nationals by a day by eliminating the measurement day. Joe Walter, listening to the electorate, convened the Class Advisory Committee for solutions. A Class Measurement Policy and associated boat Certificate was targeted and developed. This was and is a good thing and now in place.

This Good Thing is something the class should have in the interest of the members and standardizing the measuring process of the EC12. I support and applaud the work done that finally this has been done after several failing starts in the past.

This good thing has lead to the filing of two motions for Class Rule change to smooth out what is thought to be unclear in the Rules in regards to measuring. One is changing the points of reference in measuring beam widths and the other to add a further restriction to the keel width. I will speak on both in separate posts within this section by invitation for comment from Joe. I will present my opinions with reasoning, as I have in the past to the class.

These posts are not critical of the class or any individuals involved. There has never been any such desire since I left office. I have history on all these issues and I have opinions and reasoning with no personal sensitivities to prevent what I think needs to be before the class.

The Measurement Policy
Having said my support of this and its use by the administration, I disagree with its use as a vehicle for rule change. The care and protection of the Class Rules is the prime mission of an administration. This obligation is also to the intent of the rules from framing through history. There is a character to this impressed upon me from the past to protect the simplicity of the rules so the members do not feel overwhelmed by legalese.

Within this policy there is a reference for two different points of measuring the beam width; at the joining of the deck and the sheer of the hull and the other at the tumblehome of the hull.

I disagree strongly with the latter and will discuss this further in the proper forum string. Here it is to establish that because of this disagreement I entered with Bob Dudinsky and Dave Ramos for a motion to establish the point of measurement that has not been needed until the mention of tumblehome. I was asked to provide the comment for the motion due to my history with this. Unfortunately, this created a stir and some regretted public comment. Joe has invited comment and this is good for it is the members to decide by ballot. To sum up clearly I would not be involved with this motion but for the tumblehome matter.