Nothing. Notice the "If" at the beginning of the sentence. I'm not pointing fingers at anybody. I don't have anything against Nigel.

The bylaws are what they are, however they were approved.

I just want to make sure everybody has their history straight. Lord knows, I have enough of it in my basement. You want a copy of the very first NAHCA Newsletter? How about a 1973 Hobie Hotline? Minutes of every NAHCA meeting since 1988? I've got them all, and I'm embarrassed to say that they're in filed in order.

Remember Phil Hartman and "The Anal Retentive Carpenter?"

I'm not that bad. Close, but not that bad.

Matt,
Since you have everything, do you have the February-March 2001 issue of the NAHCA News?

I do! (it was misfiled I told you I wasn't quite "The Anal Retentive Hobie Sailor") - and I see why you brought that particular issue to my attention.

For within that issue lies the Bylaws revision that I thought had not been brought before the membership. It was, there was no procedural error, and the bylaws as posted on the NAHCA website are legitimate. (I am assuming, of course that they were approved - which is highly likely.)

Thanks, Mary

Q; Why was the date of August 1 2003 set as the date to eliminate any non-Hobie boat from participating in the phase-out program?
Q; If PU was the international race director for the past several years and has participated in several events within Div. 4 that authorized non-Hobies, how could he not inform the IHCA of the presence? Wasn't it his duty?

This is probably a similar story that many H-class sailors can tell, but just wanted it said.
I am part of the Bald Eagle Yacht Club, near St. Paul, MN. Within our club we also have Hobie Fleet 52.
Our annual regatta has included an open class for around 10 years. Some years there were only 3 or 4 non Hobies, most from the Lake Waconia Sailing Club. Their club is mostly Nacra's and Prindles. They are (were?) our friends, and we welcomed them to the regatta. Some of us even reciprocated and participated in their club's annual open regatta. Through their club many of us have participated in a CRAW sponsored regatta at Shell Lake for the past 6 years, initially on our TheMightyHobie18's, but were very impressed with the 6.0na's and became interested in sailing more hi-tech boats. Several of us moved to H20's 4 years ago, and through the CRAW sponsored regatta have demonstrated that we are formidable competition for the 6.0na's. Why did we get H20's and not 6.0's? Because we wanted to also compete in Hobie regattas. We have 8 H20's in the club now. So yes, some of us like one design racing AND open regattas.

That being said, back to our regatta. In 2003 we lost our regatta site of 10 years. We were scrambling to find a new site and who stepped up to help us? The Lake Waconia Sailing Club, with hardly a Hobie in the club. Their club members undertook a great deal of personal hard work and $$ to upgrade their lake site so our regatta could be co-run from their home site. The regatta was a success, with 38 total boats including 13 non-hobies.
Friendships and mutual respect have developed over the years, but now what?

If we continue to cooperate with their club in hosting future regattas, we cannot call it a hobie regatta, so don't get Division publicity. If we don't have Division publicity, what happens to the Hobie Fleet? My estimate is that about 6 of the Hobies that attended our regatta in 2003 came partly because it was a Division Points regatta.

If we don't cooperate with their club, we can hardly expect their non-hobie sailors to help, or their club to be interested in supporting our regatta.

I understand what IHCA is trying to accomplish, and I can't say I disagree with their goal in the bigger picture. On the local level, we are trying to survive, and the new direction IHCA has taken the HCA is going to create a lot of turmoil. I know, I know. We have to make the choice between hosting an open regatta or a division points regatta. Sounds simple.

We want to do both.

Dave Mortenson
Past Commodore Bald Eagle Yacht Club, Minnesota
Past Commodore Hobie Fleet 295, Rochester, NY
Current H20
Current H16
Past TheMightyHobie18
New for 2004: Laser
NAHCA #606 (yup, been a member a long time...)

NAMSA has had several organizations that in the past were resistant to the concepts of NAMSA show their desire to help by joining and offering folks to volunteer for important Chair positions.

This is very exciting news. I believe we finally have the train on the right track.
thanks for your support, folks,
Rick

I, Mary, am posting this to clarify some statements and insinuations on this thread. They relate to the fact that in the spring of 2001 the members of NAHCA apparently voted to approve changes to the NAHCA bylaws which eliminated the members’ right to vote for officers and eliminated their right to vote for changes in the bylaws. (I say “apparently,” because nobody has yet produced the mailed-in ballots and the vote tally.)

To provide background and context, I am reprinting a few relevant posts, followed by a response from Nigel Pitt, who provided me with a statement for publication in Catamaran Sailor Magazine. (Complete story will be in the March issue.)

POSTED BY MATT BOUNDS, (NAHCA Chairman 1997-2000):
Here is some NAHCA History:

The first bylaws were approved in 1993. They appeared in the Jun/Jul '93 issue of the NAHCA News along with a ballot for approval by the general membership. (I found the returned ballots in my basement - I am such a pack rat!) There were about 60 ballots returned. NAHCA Membership at the time was 1200+. A pretty poor showing.

These first bylaws gave the individual members voting rights and they were responsible for electing officers and approving bylaw changes.

The bylaws were revised in 1995, again based on a membership-wide ballot printed in the Jun/Jul '95 NAHCA News. The changes were administrative in nature and no changes to voting rights were made.

No changes were made to the NAHCA By-laws for 5 years. Officer positions were always uncontested, therefore no ballots were printed in the newsletter.

At the 2000 NAHCA AGM in Kingston, Ont., a bylaws committee was formed to update the bylaws. This was the meeting where I stepped down as NAHCA Chairman and Nigel Pitt became Chairman.

This is where things kind of fall apart. The current version of the NAHCA Bylaws (dated May 1, 2001, posted here ) are 99% the same as those approved in 1995. They still grant members the right to vote, but they don't have anything to vote on anymore. Basically, all business of the NAHCA, including officer elections and by-law revisions, is governed by the Board of Directors, which consists of the Division Chairmen and the Women's Representative. (Note that NAHCA officers do not have voting rights except as individual members).

I can't find anything in my files where the May 2001 changes to the bylaws were approved by a general membership vote as they should have been under the 1995 bylaws. (Doesn't mean it didn't happen, but I don't remember one, either.) I can understand the reasoning behind the changes - it's logistically difficult and time-consuming to conduct a membership-wide vote, although today's technology may overcome that objection. It's also very disappointing when you get less than 5% participation.

If you want to point a finger for the hiccup in procedure, you don't have far to go. This happened on Nigel's watch.


POSTED BY TRACIE:
What exactly are you insinuating, Matt?

POSTED BY MATT:
Nothing. Notice the "If" at the beginning of the sentence. I'm not pointing fingers at anybody. I don't have anything against Nigel.

The bylaws are what they are, however they were approved.

I just want to make sure everybody has their history straight. Lord knows, I have enough of it in my basement. You want a copy of the very first NAHCA Newsletter? How about a 1973 Hobie Hotline? Minutes of every NAHCA meeting since 1988? I've got them all, and I'm embarrassed to say that they're in filed in order.

POSTED BY MARY:
Since you have everything, do you have the February-March 2001 issue of the NAHCA News?

POSTED BY MATT:
I do! (it was misfiled …… and I see why you brought that particular issue to my attention.

For within that issue lies the Bylaws revision that I thought had not been brought before the membership. It was, there was no procedural error, and the bylaws as posted on the NAHCA website are legitimate. (I am assuming, of course that they were approved - which is highly likely.)

RESPONSE FROM NIGEL PITT (NAHCA Chairman 2000-2001):
I am very troubled by what I read from Matt Bounds, and I want to take just a minute to set the record straight. Let me start by saying I was drafted by Paul Ulibarri for the Chairmanship – I did not seek it, campaign for it, or covet it. I had been going about my business, sailing as much as I could, and promoting multihull sailing. I have never pretended to be the detail-oriented administrative type, so I have always done all I can to surround myself with good people that have that quality to make up for the fact that it doesn’t interest me very much.

I was not present at the meeting in Ontario when I was appointed Chairman. Actually, the only NAHCA meeting I ever attended was the one where I got fired. I have come to find out that at the meeting in Ontario, a committee was formed to look at the bylaws, which had not been revised for some time. That committee I believe, was Rich McVeigh (who was the class secretary at the time), Paul Ulibarri, and Mike Levesque. I didn’t have anything to do with the appointment or the mission of that committee, and I can say truthfully that I never knew what they were on about. Nothing ever was given to me to approve, vote on, reject or revise. The first I heard of any change to the by-laws was at the meeting in Tampa when it looked like I was about to be handed my hat.

In the meantime, I was doing what I thought I should to help strengthen the class. At the Spring Fever Regatta, I required membership in a class association for the first (and only, as it turned out) time. But to attract sailors and build the NAHCA, I offered membership to people who owned any kind of boat. This was specifically allowed under the “old regime.” The deal was this – come sail, but sign up for YOUR class association. When you sign up, Spring Fever will pay for your membership in the other organization. Show up with a Nacra, join Performance, and I’ll pay for your NAHCA membership or vice versa – both classes gain members and dues and the sport grows! It worked. At the end of my tenure as Chairman, there were over 1,200 members in NAHCA, and something like $40,000 in the bank, which positioned the organization to grow the support that had historically been provided to the Divisions and Fleets. This was a dramatic change from when I was asked to take over, and was the result of some simple and effective measures like simply sending renewal notices to everyone who’d ever been a member before.

Then the rumblings started – folks seemed to be getting the idea I was trying to convert the NAHCA into an open multihull organization. In hindsight, I realize there were a lot of people who were getting whipped up by a very few with panic tactics and misrepresentation. At the time, I was completely blind to it. I tried to assure the class that although I sail and own both Hobie and Performance boats, I was truly focused on growing the NAHCA. My statements were taken out of context and circulated as proof that I was one of the dreaded x-class “infiltrators.” It became increasingly clear that I was being railroaded, I figured that if a strong balance sheet and sharp increases in membership didn’t speak for itself, what else could I say?

By the time the class meeting in Tampa rolled around, things had come to a head. I was going to be presiding over my first meeting where emotions were running high and I was concerned that things were going to get quickly out of hand. I even had a Parliamentarian appointed to help me conduct the meeting properly, knowing that my strength doesn’t lie even in that zip code. The person I asked to take on the job showed up well prepared, and we did a pre-meeting pow-wow with Paul Ulibarri to make sure we could conduct the meeting, get through the election of officers, and get back to the regatta at hand without it dissolving into a shouting match. I had a pretty good idea at that point that I was on the way out, but it was my responsibility to see it through, and I truly disagreed with Rich McVeigh on how the class was to be run.

The Parliamentarian opened a tabbed notebook and started asking some questions I couldn’t answer. Had the ballots been sent to the members 30 days prior to the meeting? How many votes had been received? Had the Nominating Chairman tallied them? I didn’t have those answers. It should be noted that Paul was sitting right there with me, the man who made up one third of the committee that had been formed to revise the by-laws, the very committee that had eliminated that language, effectively removing any reference to the general dues-paying members of NAHCA voting for anything at all, and all he said was something like, “oops, I guess we can’t have an election tonight.”

We convened the meeting and started conducting business. When we got to the election portion of the evening, all hell broke loose. Rich, who was still secretary, had a whole different set of bylaws. The Parliamentarian was asked where he got his version, and he said he’d printed them off the NAHCA web site the night before. Nobody had any record of a vote to change the bylaws, although someone was able to dig out a copy of the NAHCA News in which they’d been printed. I was stunned. Why would the members give up their vote?

I looked at Paul and I looked at Rich and knew I’d been snookered. These were the guys who had put their arms over my shoulder and asked me to be Chairman to begin with… I left that meeting disappointed, disillusioned and disgusted. I’ve never looked back, until now. The only reason I wanted to respond was to prevent some revisionist history from going unchallenged. Maybe Matt didn’t mean anything by his public comments, but the changes to the by-laws passed completely under my radar, perhaps intentionally so. Maybe the whole open class controversy was simply a smoke screen for a power grab.

I don’t want anyone to think I’m seeking to infiltrate NAHCA again – I’m pretty happy with my good friends doing our own thing. I do still bear a bitterness at how the general membership has been disenfranchised – what is it with elections in Florida, anyway? My feeling is that the original bylaws were just fine – they didn’t compel members to vote, but anyone who took the time and effort to get their vote in was counted. I’ve heard the argument that the “old” bylaws were costing too much money – publishing a ballot once a year in the class newsletter is prohibitively expensive? I’ve heard that it was changed because so few people were voting – so what? It’s a class association, where everyone should get a voice whether they use it or not. I’ll bet there are members that wish they could vote now, eh? I have also heard the argument that, hey, the Division Chairs represent us. Conveniently, there’s nothing in the “new and improved” by-laws that says my Division Chair needs to talk to me or anyone else… there’s no requirement for polling, or building consensus or ANYTHING before he or she toddles off to the annual meeting to conduct the business of the class. That’s not really representation, is it? Yes, some of them make a real effort to reach out to the general members in their Division, but most do not, and none have to. Have you been asked anything lately?

The whole business makes me sad – membership is way down (less than 800 or so?) and looking grim for the coming year, the treasurer says they’re broke, and there are a lot of upset people on both sides of the fence. I suspect that things will smooth out in the next few months and, like the “big election” in 2001, it will all seem like less of a problem once we figure out how to keep our respective fleets going.

In the meantime, the bylaws limit the Chairman’s term to three years. Who will be taking over when Rich steps down later this year, I wonder? I wish them luck and wisdom, and hope they’ll bring back the general membership vote for elected officers and general membership approval of changes to the by-laws. Put the class tiller back in the hands of the sailors that make up the class, then maybe IHCA policy might be easier to swallow or spit out. After all, I think Hobie Sr. started this whole thing right here in America – who says we can’t steer our own course? Shouldn’t the IHCA then do what NAHCA says?

NIGEL PITT

Unbelievable!!!

Bob (No Comment)

Sounds like Nigel really got railroaded! I'm sorry to hear it but not terribly surprised.

The silver lining is what he (Nigel) said about fund raising. If you want people to join your organization, just ask!

Are there any old regatta lists? I'm not at all shy about calling people on the phone, sending an email or using any other method of contact to ask cat sailors to join NAMSA. And by the way, we should make it very clear it isn't an either or situation. If your a Hobie sailor, attend all the Hobie functions you like, but your welcome at ours also.

My goodness! That... (Nigel's version) is an interesting view of what happened. Not the way I recall how Rich was voted in.

I am actually quite bothered that Nigel takes that stance... takes the time to weave a story of some kind of power struggle in the class. I think I understand the motives of where it comes from though. It is just bad natured stirring of the pot. I certainly don't buy this "railroaded" version in ANY way. Nigel was just an unfortunate choice for the director of the class since he had no interest in doing the job to begin with.

I recall two articles in the NAHCA news that outlined what Nigel and Rich wanted for the direction of the class to take. Members were presented with the two directions and the vote went against Nigel’s view. It was really pretty simple.

Oh come on! Matt, this is just human nature! You get the same kind of infighting whenever you have groups! My boy scout troop was almost as bad.

Matt,
The point of the entire post is that the members were NOT presented with the option of voting for either "direction" or either candidate, because at that point the bylaws had been changed so they no longer had the right to vote for officers.

With a VERY quick review of old newsletters... it is obvious that the voting process was spelled out clearly. It certainly was clear and plain to these two candidates at the time.

I found the two articles from Rich and Nigel (NAHCA News Oct/Nov 2001).

Both in Nigel’s "NAHCA Chairman piece", in the front of the newsletter, and at the end of the article that Rich wrote, the voting process was spelled out plainly:

Rich wrote... "The way our election process works, the 16 Division Chairmen and the Women's Representative get to vote. Regardless of how you feel about these issues, please make your feelings known to your Division Chairman so the he/she may vote in a manner that accurately reflects the true desires of the membership."

Seems there was no question about how it should be done back then, so how does it make sense to second-guess it now? It doesn't make sense. For Nigel to suggest that there was some funny business going on in the background is just plain ridiculous.

The Division Chairmen voted… If you didn’t get involved back then, don’t keep complaining about the outcome and the current course of events. Either get involved now… shut up and follow… or get out of the way.

The bottom line is the general membership did NOT get to vote. I was very involved and I did talk to my Division Chair. But, there was no way the majority was going to be heard with that system and you know it. Which I’m sure was part of the plan.

Regards,
David Ingram

What plan David? Nigel was the chairman and he knew what the voting procedure was. I remember hearing that he tried to disrupt that meeting to prevent a vote. Seems he knew, going in, that he did not have the popular support of the class. He lost... Rich won... end of that chapter.

All this conspiracy stuff is just plain silly. Popular support has to be class wide... not from just a couple of divisions.

Lets move on.

I am confused
How am I, or anybody else, supposed to tell our Division Chairman how to vote if we don't know what they are voting on?
The majority of new business at the AGM is introduced AT the AGM.

Another question.
How did the Race Committee Chairman(PU) get the authority to "draft" a new NAHCA Chairman?
How did Nigel get "elected" in 2000 without a membership election, if the membership didn't lose that right until late 2001?

And a question I keep asking.
Rich McVeigh received the first letter from PU, Lori Mahoney, Brian Phipps, and David Brookes on October 15, 2003 and the second letter from Doug Skidmore on October 24, 2003.
Why did he wait until January 2004 to tell us?
How many others knew of these emails?
Matt Miller, when did you know?
Roger Brown, when did you know?
Kathleen Tracy, when did you know?
Bruce Andrews, when did you know?
Liza Cleveland, when did you know?
Mimi Appel, when did you know?
Terri Reuwsaat, when did you know?
Mike Levesque, when did you know?
Karen-Ann Xavier, when did you know?

WHO KNEW AND WHEN DID THEY KNOW IT?

Are we supposed to trust these peoploe who kept this a secret from us?

Do you know what your City Council, State Representatives, Congressmen or Senators are voting on today? Those are important decisions that are effecting our lives and we are all letting someone else handle it... and we are paying them to do it. The HCA is an under-funded sailing association run by volunteers. They cannot be expected to hold your hand and keep you informed of every possible decision that is going down. Keep informed, attend meetings and make your views known to the people in charge... that is how it is done every where else... that is how it has to be done with the HCA.

We vote to elect those City Council, State Representatives, Congressmen or Senators -- and we can vote to un-elect them.

Then it is as simple as that... you don't like how the system is running... get involved.

In this case you first have to be a HCA member. Campaign with your fleet, division and ask your Division Chairman to vote your wishes.

I'm confused about "getting involved". All of the most "involved" folks in my Division that I have any contact with didn't know anything about a discussion or consideration regarding any of the latest NAHCA/HCA/IHCA mandates. Some of them have held fleet and division positions for the past 20 years.

I guess I'm not sure how "involved" we have to become just to get in on the conversation.

Mike Wallace
H-17