But there must be moments when he wishes he could have taken on this new role a good 12 months later, after the 2008 AGM, when finally the dust will be beginning to settle on one of the most turbulent periods in ISAF’s history. But that isn’t the case, and like it or not, Jerome finds himself embroiled in the battle for Weymouth 2012.

Jerome, there is a lot of concern that ISAF Council has deemed the matter of the Olympic Events for 2012 as ‘not urgent’ for discussion at the mid-year meeting in May. Can you explain why this is the case?
It might be a bit technical, but you have to look at the rules as to how the Federation is governed. We have two meetings every year, the AGM in November and the mid-year meeting. The purpose of the mid-year meeting is dealing with financial issues, reporting of the running of the operation, and a second purpose is to tidy up loose ends such as final wording of regulations which were approved in principle in November.

The whole point of the mid-year meeting is that it doesn’t start any new debate or new things, that’s not the purpose of the meeting. Not all the committees are meeting at that time. That is reflected in the ISAF regulations. Only urgent decisions (which cannot wait until the following November) can be considered for the mid-year meeting.

What is the definition of urgent?
The question comes, why is it urgent or not? And if the reason is that people disagree with a decision made in November… the fact that they don’t agree doesn’t necessarily make it urgent. The IOC will consider the ISAF decisions after we have also selected the equipment, which means after November 2008. A valid and legal decision has been taken by the ISAF Council – who are there to represent the sailors – and now it is down to the ISAF Secretariat and Executive Committee to implement that decision.

You did us the great favour of your survey [the Olympic classes survey last October in SailJuice], and you see how difficult this situation is. I think your survey concluded that it should get rid of the heavyweight singlehander but to keep the Finn. Well, good luck with implementing that decision!

We have 11 events and one needed to go. Whatever event you take out, that will cause uproar with the people affected. ISAF Council has to take a decision on these things. If we had taken out windsurfing, there would have been uproar because people feel it’s a young part of the sport. If we had taken out the Finn, people would have said there isn’t enough opportunity for the heavier sailors. So whatever decision you take, there would have been an uproar, and it would have been a difficult situation.

What many people object to is the way the voting procedure was changed so late in the day, that is part of what is causing the unrest…
The voting system didn’t really change. The Council hadn’t made up its mind how it was going to vote on this. You could argue this both ways. You could argue for the advantages or disadvantages of both systems. There was an evening in between when people could really digest what the consequences of this voting process were.

The President the following morning asked to check that everyone knew what they were about to do, and no one raised an objection at the time.

You have to see it from this point of view, which is that you have to be respectful of how the sport is governed. If the Council makes a decision, it would be very disrespectful for the Executive to ignore what the Council members had agreed. It would be almost like a riot.

You might disagree with the decision, but if you agree with the process of these people voting on behalf of the nations they represent around the world, you’ve got to respect that, otherwise you end up with a form of anarchy. That’s the way this organisation works. You might not agree with that, but that’s how it has been agreed that it should work at the moment.

You say there is a lot of unrest. It would be very interesting if nations who had voted one way, were now to say, ‘we realise we voted the wrong way, or we now want to vote in another way,’ but that hasn’t happened. It’s only the RYA who has said, ‘we feel the majority decision was wrong.’

Didn’t Yachting Australia state their position?
Yes, but they haven’t put forward a solution. They haven’t put forward what they wanted to change. There is a letter from the French saying they believe the multihull should be included, but they are against the run-off solution because they also feel the keelboat should be included. That’s their position. Many Council members feel strongly that way as well. You could very easily have the position of having the multihull included, but what do you take out?

Shouldn’t the decision have been based on affordability and accessibility? Keelboats are more expensive to campaign, and difficult for emerging nations to compete in than the other classes. Not that the Tornado was that affordable, but another form of multihull could have been much more affordable, don’t you think?
I agree with that, and there is a lot of confusion between choosing the Event and the Equipment. My personal view is that this move against the multihull was made in part as a vote against the Tornado as equipment, and I was very concerned this was going to happen, because you can see the number of nations competing for slots in the Olympics in the Tornado Class has steadily gone down. Maybe they should have looked at equipment that was more accessible.

From what you say, it sounds unlikely anything is going to change. Is there any point in the RYA or anyone else pursuing this agenda? Presumably it’s not beyond the possibilities that something could still change.
Theoretically it could change, but the point is, the Executive simply cannot go against what Council decided, because that would mean riot. That would mean ignoring the decision of the highest body, and that would not be possible. If someone comes up with a submission saying, ‘I disagree with the decision last November,’ that doesn’t make it urgent. There were 200 decisions taken in November and you can’t have them all opened up for discussion again and again at the mid-year meeting. Not only that, but because of opening it up and saying it’s urgent, there might be legal consequences.

Do you feel the 40 Council members are truly representative of the sport?
When the decision went out, quite a few people commented that it was just a bunch of old men in a smoke-filled room making this decision. This is absolutely not the case. It’s in an open room, everyone can see what’s happening. Most Council members are being heavily coached by members of their national federation, you see Olympic team coaches sitting behind their Council members. They know what they’re doing. I do think they’re well briefed on what their nations really want. You have to remember that any sailor anywhere in the world can make their voice heard through their own Federation and that these Council members represent the views of the Federations. The system works to represent everyone, not just a few who shout the loudest.

That’s part of the problem, though isn’t it? Because national authorities will vote for their national interests rather than for the wider interests of the sport…
You will always have that, and it’s difficult to stop that. At the start of the Council Meeting, The President always reminds the members of the Council of Article 41 of the ISAF Constitution: They have to put forward the views of the members of the group they represent but when they exercise their vote they shall have regard to the interest of the sport.

What about the ISAF Athletes Commission and its desire to have a representative at the Council table. Do you consider that a valid request?
Not really. It’s difficult, because this is what you hear all the time. The Council members are there to represent the sailors, however the coaches say they represent the sailors, the Athletes Commission say they represent the sailors, the class associations say they represent the sailors, you hear that from all groups. ISAF is a membership organisation, where the Nations (National Sailing Federations) are the full members; it is their club. The sailors are members of the National Federations. It is not different from any other International Sports Governing Body. The Athletes Commission is important though, because they provide a direct line of communication to the Executive Committee regarding the many (technical) details around our sport that are really important to many sailors. For example The Athletes and the Coaches Commissions have been instrumental in the last two years in drafting ISAF Race Management policies to improve the consistency on how International competition (including the Olympic Games) is run.

But the Athletes Commission – they are the sailors.
But they are from the elite part of the sport. Do they represent all the sailors that ISAF as a governing body represents? Your survey on the equipment and events shows that the public struggles with the same decisions as the politicians do. It shows you how difficult these decisions are.

Question: Difficult decisions indeed, but do you think the Olympic sailors themselves should have a seat at the table of ISAF Council, or is the current make-up of ISAF Council as good as you can hope to get in an imperfect world?

But no matter. As Jerome’s email points out, we can at least be reassured that ISAF’s stance on this matter is not as undemocratic as it had first appeared. What concerns me more is Jerome’s assertion that it is not ISAF Executive’s place to question the rights or wrongs of a decision made by ISAF Council. Vested interests clearly had a role to play in the way the Council vote unfolded in Estoril last November, and it is unacceptable that ISAF Executive has not called the process into question.

Here is Jerome’s email in full…

Dear Andy

Closing and Urgent: ISAF Executive Minutes

As the being the person responsible for the minutes I take criticism on not being clear very serious. However it also seems some readers do like to read things that are simply not there. Anyway, I will try to clarify with the following comments:

Closing:
- The ISAF Council is the decision making body of ISAF.
- There are clear procedures and timelines in the ISAF regulations setting out the procedures for selecting the events and equipment for the Olympic Games.
- The procedures were followed and a decision was made in November, therefore closing the matter. So the ‘closing’ refers to the Council decision not to a decision of the Executive Committee a couple of weeks ago.
- The Council may change their minds (have a revote) and opening the matter.
- Regulation 16.1.3 clearly indicates that the Council can overturn a previous decision on the issue, but only with a two third majority.

Urgent:
- At the Mid-Year meeting, only urgent submissions are to be considered.
- The Executive Committee decides what is urgent.
- Being in disagreement with a decision of Council of November does not make it an urgent matter.
- The issue can be and should be dealt with in November giving it the chance of a full debate with all stakeholders present.

The Executive Committee in February did not consider whether they agree or disagree with the Council decision. It is up to the Executive Committee (and the Staff of ISAF) to implement decisions of the ISAF Council, not to criticise or undermine those decisions. Until the Council decides otherwise, they will implement the decision and this is not to be confused as an ‘undemocratic stance’.

Best regards

Jerome Pels