Not everyone has welcomed ISAF’s new submission with open arms. The UK Catamaran Racing Association’s Simon Morgan sent SailJuice this response to the submission, and Simon questions some of the language used by ISAF in this new document.
Here is Simon’s interpretation of things:
This is a welcome move in the right direction by ISAF, but it may sadly turn into a public relations disaster, the more closely it is publicly examined, because the leadership’s proposal is legally imprecise and open to suspicion of bias, to which its Members have now become highly sensitised.
Firstly, ISAF Members (MNA’s) should be congratulated for responding to the public concerns of the sailing community. It is impressive not only how widespread but also how comprehensive are their initiatives in seeking a better solution. They include submissions from 15 countries and 2 international classes on the selection of Events. Should a majority of Council vote in favour of change, but fail to reach the additional two-thirds hurdle that the leadership seeks to impose, (perhaps unnecessary at this juncture) they also include a further dozen submissions for multihull equipment to be considered alongside monohull equipment for the currently approved Events.
Strategically, there are also proposals to ask IOC for an 11th Event and to set up a new Multihull Committee, like Windsurfing. These are from nations rich and poor, large and small and all around the world.
They all should be thanked, especially those who have had to back down on their original decision for doing the decent thing in saying, ‘sorry we simply did not think about the multihull community because you were politically unorganised. Having read your lengthy report and listened to the enormous body of public opinion against the Estoril Events decision, we see that you are a significant part of the sport we all love and have organised yourself and we want to find a place for you somewhere in our “big church”.
But has ISAF leadership got that message?
Remember the November Council Meeting where Charley Cook “proposed that the voting process could be simplified…by making a slight modification”.
Remember Arve Sundheim’s letter to Members in November which excused the failure to advise Councillors of the 2002 IOC document on guidelines for Olympic Events entitled “Recommendations” on the basis that this was not “a policy of the IOC to recommend that if any events are to be removed from the Olympic Programme for sailing that it could be keelboat”
Remember the Minutes of the February Executive Meeting that responded to the host nation’s concerns by describing the choice of Events as “closed”, but now “recognizing the level of concerns over the decision as per the submissions received” the selection of Events is no longer closed.
If the leadership were genuinely open-minded why propose that Council “reaffirm” rather than “review” and why continue “upon reaffirmation”, rather than “if reaffirmed”, when such alternative neutral language is available? The accompanying press release continues in similar manner “The Executive Committee intent in making this submission is to bring to a close the current speculation challenging the Council decision”.
The proposal is even more grudging in that the Executive oddly asks Councillors to reaffirm rather than reject their decision. This raises questions about impartiality.
· Will the weight of authority be used to influence Councillors to vote for affirmation?
· Will the Executive be bound by the doctrine of collective responsibility or will they be allowed a free vote as their conscience dictates?
· Will David Kellett of Australia, as portfolio holder for Olympic issues, be obliged to speak favourably for the motion when he presents it, even if he voted for the two Events rejected in November?
The reality implied in this choice of words is that this is in effect a guillotine motion on the many valid submissions from members, which they would have the right to debate in May, if the Executive regards them as urgent, or in November if it does not. Worse still, it says Council will vote on this particular proposal, whatever its defects, because the Executive deems this to be urgent and can deem any other version to be not urgent.
Furthermore it sweepingly includes “all submissions” but what exactly are they? Does this mean rejection of the F18 proposal for a Multihull Committee like the Windsurfing Committee? Does this mean rejection of the New Zealand submission that ISAF apply to IOC for an 11th Event? Surely Regulation 1.5.1 on the proper form for submissions requires the leadership’s own submission to state what article, regulation or rule applies? How can Councillors decide if they do not know who has submitted what?
Why have Councillors not been given the list of Events submissions? They were made public for the Annual Conference, so why not for the Mid-Year Meeting? The agenda contains summaries of 25 other submissions, so why are these Events submissions not published? Does the leadership want to stop Members from finding out which other Members are unhappy?
The lack of legal precision causes further problems because Submission M06-08 asks Council to “reaffirm their decision” when in fact there was a complex of four procedural and five substantive decisions concerning the selection of Events in November. To which one is this proposal addressed? If all or none, why deny Councillors the right to choose from the menu?
According to the February Minutes, “The Executive Committee further observed that had such timely decision not occurred there would now exist an urgent need to make the event selection decision”. If it is now up for reconsideration, and would have been urgent, had it not been decided, why is it now urgent to start the process, but not complete it by deciding in May what the Events should be?
How can the Equipment Committee make recommendations if it does not know what the Events will be? Specifically, can it recommend either a mono- or a multihull class for Dinghy Events? Following the America’s Cup decision, can it recommend a multihull for a Keelboat Event?
There is one further demanding legal issue. Can a submission to reaffirm something, ever be legally valid? Submissions are made to change something. How absurd would it be for the British Parliament or US Congress sitting to pass an Act that already exists? They would surely only do so, if there were proposals to change it. This could be achieved by replacing the word “reaffirm” with “reject”.
In sum this proposal raises so many questions that it should be sent to the Constitutional Committee, with the request that it reformulate the proposal or proposals so that they are specific, unbiased and legally valid.
Simon Morgan
Founder Wildwind Holidays
Co-author UKCRA report to ISAF Council, March 2008
Question: Do you think there is more to this submission than meets the eye? Or is Simon just being paranoid?
Is Simon being paranoid? Yes, but that doesn’t mean the substance of what he says is wrong.
The meeting is clearly set up with a guilotine vote. If the first proposal fails to achieve 50% then absolutely nothing else will happen in respect of the events for 2012.
The cleverness of the way the way the decisions have been organised is that 66% of delegates must then vote in favour of a further proposal on events. Given the fact that the meeting is still not organised in a way to guarantee voting in the interests of sailing generally rather than in narrow national interests then it must be doubtful as to whether any other proposal will get sufficient votes to change the current position.
Now that strength is also its weakness. You could get the non-reaffirmation and still not get a result that is in the interests of sailing generally. Until the genral structure of decision making in this area is overhauled I’m not optimistc of a ‘good’ decision being made – even if I don’t personally like its outcome.
By: Bill Tucker on 7 April 2008
at 8:38 am
What an excellent article from Simon. When a “slight modification” turns the sailing world upside down, how can anyone be judged as being paranoid by phraseology? Simon is a realist, as are we all. IF ISAF reaffirm, then the consequences will come back to haunt them. Cats are not going to frizzle out because of no Olympic representation. In fact they may become a role model as this entirely none modern, no-representative “slate” may lead to the exclusion of sailing from the Olympics. The ISAF Games may then be unable to compete for commercial backing against modern, high performance classes. The mind boggles. Great analysis Simon – you are most certainly the man who has it nailed!
By: Pete Conway on 9 April 2008
at 4:23 pm