While our Class Association Rules and Specs are extensive, the By-Laws are quite simple. They grant the authority to call a meeting to change the rules to a Board of Governors consisting of the President, District Governors, Chief Measurer, J/Boats Representative, Immediate Past President, and up to three At-Large Members (of which I am currently one).

Fleets, with a minimum of three full association members, may organize within each geographic District. As a practical matter Fleets and Districts have been treated as one and the same. As of this week there were 61 paid J/30 Class Association Members, broken down below by District, number of members, and % of total membership:

A. Northern New England -- 5 (8%)
B. Southern New England -- 6 (10%)
C. Long Island Sound -- 7 (11%)
D. Chesapeake -- 15 (25%)
E. Carolina's -- 3 (5%)
F. Southeast -- 3 (5%)
G. Gulf Coast -- 6 (10%)
H. California -- 2 (3%)
I. Pacific Northwest -- 4 (7%)
J. Western Great Lakes -- 4 (7%)
K. Eastern Great Lakes -- 4 (7%)
International -- 1 (2%)
Other -- 1 (2%)

The By-Laws do not indicate what makes a quorum or how many votes are required to pass a change; typically a majority of those attending a Board of Governors meeting has ruled. If each District is represented and shared positions receive a single vote, there is the possibility of 18 votes.

I am concerned that my District, which has more than twice as many members as the next largest District and races primarily or exclusively one-design could be out-voted by Districts that have few members and rarely or never races one-design.

As such I feel it is time to consider changing the Class By-Laws to:

1. Reorganize from the current eleven Districts into a smaller number of geographic units,
2. Define Fleets as those that contain the minimum of three members actively sailing one-design,
3. Vote either by Fleet or directly by class member,
4. Set a quorum, and
5. Require a two-thirds majority of those voting to make a change.

Interesting...
If representing the J/30 communitiy is measured by who has the most paid J/30 Association members then Bob's method is a way to re-district the organization. Perhaps too, Bob could suggest that Congress be re-districted and inclusive of only those that voted in the last election
I submit another perspective
I might have missed a couple when I counted but I came up with about 460 J/30's in the fleet data base.
If that number is correct then dues paying members, at 61, represent only 13.3% of the total J/30 communitiy. Re-distircting around only the dues paying one-design sailors would then make the representation of the whole even less than 13% (that assumes that not all the dues paying members race one design).
WOW!
I'm thinking that a progressive, inclusive BOG (including at-large) member would be asking - what can I do, what changes can I bring that would make the J/30 community want to join the J/30 Class Association.

To that end, I'd be willing to bet that of the dues paying members, the majority race more PHRF than they do one-design events.
And if I'm correct - then why isn't the board asking what they can do to make PHRF and one-design more compatable

Here's a challenge to the board. Why not poll the 400 identified non-paying members and ask what it would take to get them to join. BTW, I'm not a dues paying member - but most who have read my comments on String sails know why.


Here's another suggestion - how about making another district called the Lake Erie/St.Clair District. Currently we can be represented by the Eastern Great lakes District - kind of headquatered in lake Ontario or the Western Great Lakes District - which is for the boats on Lake Michigan. If there is ever going to be any one-design racing done by the Lake Erie/Lake St. Clair boats my guess is it will be done in Lake Erie not Lake Ontario or Michigan. How about giving us our own district? I'd even pay dues and volunteer to be the representative

I would say that each rep gets a number of votes based on the number of members in its district. For example, if each rep got one vote per 3 class members (with a minimum of one vote per rep).

I don't support your point #2, as I pay my dues to support the class, but don't have the opportunity to race OD. I pay my cash so I would expect to be represented even though I don't OD. I became a class member this year as I still directly benefit from the class (this website for example; good websites aren't free) It is important to be able to attract members like me who are not necessarily racing OD to present a more holistic view of the vessels' use and to support the services this class provides.

I do agree that a quorum should be met, but this should be a minimum number of votes represented, not just warm bodies in the room (or on the phone).

Fair points, though declining to join the Class Association in protest is not the same as lack of interest. Ranking the fleets by possible members may be somewhat inaccurate considering multiple owners and data lag with boats changing hands.

District, Members (rank), Posible Members (rank):
D. Chesapeake -- 15 (1), 67 (1)
C. Long Island Sound -- 7 (2), 59 (2)
I. Pacific Northwest -- 4 (6), 58 (3)
G. Gulf Coast -- 6 (3), 54 (4)
A. Northern New England -- 5 (5), 50 (5)
B. Southern New England -- 6 (3), 44 (6)
J. Western Great Lakes -- 4 (6), 36 (7)
K. Eastern Great Lakes -- 4 (6), 36 (7)
Other -- 1 (12), 30 (9)
H. California -- 2 (11), 26 (10)
International -- 1 (12), 16 (11)
F. Southeast -- 3 (9), 13 (12)
E. Carolina's -- 3 (9), 7 (13)
Total -- 61, 496

(Note: this counts names from the public class membership roles, not boats.)

Providing resources for boat owners may be reason enough for some to support the Class Association. I'm looking for more--support for one-design racing in active fleets. The Class has this in Annapolis, nearly so at Cedar Point and in New Orleans. There's probably scant hope of reaching critical mass (which I define as ten boats) anywhere else, anytime soon, but it is not out of the question. I foresee the possibility that if the current mainsail proposal passes, those in the Annapolis would not conform, which I believe would be detrimental to both my Fleet and the Class.

It was pretty obvious yestereday but I didn't want to call you out. But since you've acknowledged it... let's be honest. It appears that you want to change the way the Class BOG voting is done because you think the Class might vote to change the rule on mainsail material. One could conclude that you want to change the way the voting is done so that the votes are skewed toward the OD sailors and that would hopefully lead to voitng down a mainsail material change. OK - I get it.

I won't comment on the mainsail but I'll restate my point yesterday. There are about 460 J/30's registered and even of the 61 paid Associations, most do much more PHRF racing then OD. Do a poll if you don't beleive but one can figure that out from just reading the comments from the BOG members about activity. By example, one of the New England districts can't do level racing at an OD event because too many of the boats are modified to race PHRF - I'd have that same problem on Lake Erie
In my opinion, if you want to grow OD, make the OD relevent to the PHRF racers and give them a reason to join - Don't exclued/INCLUDE!

Regarding your comment "that if the current mainsail proposal passes those in Annapolis would not confirm"; I'm sorry but i don't follow the logic. If the rule gets changed, you would not be obligated to buy string sails. Dacron would be legal. You and your fleet could continue to sail with Dacron. Wasn't it someone from your fleet that said something about "one bad tack"?

Back to the original topic on how the rules can be changed. The class rules state that unless we modify rule 1.7 first, the procedure for taking a vote is etched in stone.

1.7 These Class Rules may be amended, altered, added to, or repealed by a majority of the members of the Board of Governors present and voting at a meeting called for such purpose on at least 30 days notice. A quorum shall consist of 40% of the Governors who were serving at the time of the notice, and no action shall be taken without a quorum.

Thus - if the BOG proposed a change to rule 1.7, voted the change per the existing rules, then once the change took effect the modified method of voting could be used.

Procedurally, we have adapted the following methods to obtain the required BOG quorum in a number of ways including:
1. Face to face meeting augmented with people on the phone (e.g. the meeting held annually at the NAs)
2. A scheduled meeting via telecon
3. Email votes
4. Votes cast on the Board of Governors section in the forum.

Basically - we have no problem obtaining the 40% quorom needed in order to properly vote on a proposed rules change.

By that I mean the Annapolis fleet would more than likely choose to restrict local one-design events to Dacron mainsails only.

Then, if a fleet member wanted to mount a challenge for the 2012 NA's New Orleans (or whenever the new rule takes effect) they'd look to get a $4899 laminated mainsail I posted on the other thread.

(For those who haven't been following this debate at home, I'll provide a simple example: Russ could have ordered a Dacron mainsail last fall at boat show prices for $2389 so he could sail in the 2011 NA's in Annapolis. If the rules change, Bob will have to decide whether to spend more than twice that much for a laminated mainsail in order to be competetive at the 2012 NA's in New Orleans.)

As Bill notes above I was mistaken--the quorum requirement and majority vote are in the Rules, not in the the By-Laws.

This is a fascinating thread! Since it's two topics munged, I'll try to break out separately below. I also will add that I really appreciate all of the viewpoints - this spirited discussion is a sign of thoughtful, invested owners which is healthy for the boat in general. So, please take my comments as they are intended - constructive.

Voting: I think it's fair to say that all owners' votes should be counted as an owner group. And, that could be part of the problem here. To think of this community as a OD racing group is fair and understandable yet I believe the assertion above is that assuming that OD is everyone's reality is shortsighted (to which I agree - mostly). To fracture into a OD and "all the rest" only serves to hurt the total community. One could argue that for OD racing rules that a due-paying member deserves to have more say with regard to OD rules. But, to exclude other owners only serves to keep OD small and easily controlled by a small group.

Disclosure: I always prefer OD but it's not realistic to expect it here in the PNW. I'm not current on my dues and should be - will take care of it. I support and advocate a change to allow string sails for all OD events.

Sails: the figures quoted above are for one vendor and are (from what I've seen here and researched myself) the largest disparity. As such, I don't think it's a completely balanced portrayal of the discussion. Just MHO.

I've heard it argued by both owners and sailmakers that there is no significant performance difference between dac and string. People have said that "one bad tack" or a poor start/tactical decision can unravel any advantage to strings to which I agree. It's also been discussed that the string sails could be made to a spec that erases any perceived weight aloft advantages.

So, I don't see what the issue is. Buy dacron and prove the point that there's no advantage (and smile at the dollars saved!). Or, buy the most expensive sails allowed and hope you don't look foolish finishing in the middle of the fleet.

My point (i think) is that freedom of choice expands the community and likely gets more folks involved. Restriction of options shrinks the addressable market. In this economy and at a time where more and more boats are being built more cheaply and offer a compelling value to others, I don't think that's smart but that's just me.

An interesting (but admittedly non-scientific) consideration is that most of the folks in favor of changing this rule are a.) relatively new (or at least newly vocal) owners and b.) not in a specific location but sprinkled elsewhere across the country. Maybe this means it's an opportunity to expand reach and involvement?

I'll wrap with a very real example:
As soon as I have 2 fewer kids in diapers than I do now, I'll be racing more. I bought a great used sail (remember Bob? It's one of your UKs ;-) that will serve until then and even make a great weeknight/practice main. However, I plan to buy lam/string sails because I prefer them (I believe they are competitive longer, I like trimming them better, I believe - accurate or not - that I sail better with them, etc.). Since I'll do that, attending a NAs is a non-starter for me. Bummer. If I could bring and use those sails, it's at least an OPTION. As an owner, it's a little sad to me that I can't even consider it because I'm not also going to buy a second main.

Put more bluntly: "hey honey - let's do the NAs this coming year! They're in New Orleans, we could take the family, escape our crappy weather, and have a fun and different kind of vacation adventure!"
OR: "hey - heard NAs are in New Orleans this year. That would be awesome... But, the only main I have that's legal is from 2004. So... how about we go back to Maui?" ;-)

From my perspective, I just see this as a clear choice to expand the community and evolve in a way that makes OD more inclusive and provides a chance for others to play.

Bob: I want to add that you have done a great deal over the years to contribute to making the fleet great. When we talked right after I bought #426, you spent a ton of time on the phone with me sharing experiences and knowledge which I greatly appreciate. I'm a strong supporter of OD integrity as I know you are. But, this is a topic that for more is beyond dacron and string and a chance to make the community of active owners (and racers!) bigger which benefits us all.

Phew. Sorry for the long mail. Hopefully it contributes constructively to the dialog.

Cheers, Jeff