Designed to work-around the Constitution

A link to the Flying Scot Foundation Charter is on the home page of FSSA. Please read it very carefully. Upon close examination it appears to me that the change to Article II is being proposed because the now existing Flying Scot Foundation established under the FSSA modifies the purpose of FSSA and therefore a change is necessary for tax law because of the planned “insertion” of this Foundation. If there is/was no change then there is no argument for a rewrite. Or, need for a rewrite to conform to tax law. However, this Foundation will change the basic makeup of the Association, is structured as part of the FSSA and will be fully supported IF Article II is rewritten. It is an entity using the strength of the host to strengthen itself, a parasite. It is positioned to go straight to the heart of our Association and it needs some serious consideration. I believe it is for the means of enriching the political clout of a select few. Argument: Has there been anything else, like this in any way, this big, that has ever piggy-backed onto the FSSA? Primary Cause for Alarm: This entity already exists. We know about it only after the issue was forced. And most importantly, it is very broadly structured. I have found several things that are very alarming. - Item (2), Who, of us FSSA members, voted on this charter of this now existing Flying Scot Foundation? No one yet, The BOG is to address in in two weeks. Why is it already born? - Item (4), “preferably” this word establishes the committee as preferential. Interpretively, anyone who runs it can select who will run it. And item (13) allows for this to be restructured by the appointed. Tenure, that is what this offers. Who are these five? It says how the committee “might be” structured. The word “preferably” makes all wording within the rest of this item “Not Fact” - Item (6), “…or by the Deed of Gift of the donor” So, if I give money I can say what is to be done with it? How this fund will be a pawn for a bigger engine? I can give money and direct it to: - Fund the legislation for the mandated use of PFD’s for all boats under 20 feet? - Fund the legislation for the mandate of boaters insurance for all armature competition? - I can make it appear that the FSSA represents my interests? - The other wording of Item 6 allows the “preferable” to do as they see fit. WOW that is broad. Powerful National and International political stuff, right there… - Item (7.a.iv) is reckless and in direct conflict with Article II – Object of the Constitution as originally phrased. This it the realm of the appointed duties of the Chief Measurer and of the measurement committee. This Foundation should have no say in the one-design of the Flying Scot. Even if it this Foundation exists outside the FSSA! The design of the boat is governed by FSSA and FSSA alone. It can be argued (if not fact) that the design is the intellectual property of FSSA. “Develop technology” is not a phrase consistent with the Constitution Objective of the FSSA as originally worded. “Maintain Rigidly” is the operative phrase in the copy of the constitution I have on my desk, dated 1983. If these people want to build a different boat, they should launch a different Association. - Item (7.a.xiv) is so broad that, interpretively, the Foundation can involve itself in anything whatsoever. - Item (13) How is this fund to be amended? What! Where is it worded in FSSA to permit this? Our Assoc is run by the membership. We elect the Governors from the fleet level and the BOG has duties outlined under article XII item (1.) Furthermore, The Executive committee is a sub committee of the BOG. Not the boss. This creates a Loop Hole and is designed to work-around the Constitution of the host, Us the FSSA. - Item (13) amendment option. This item allows the Dooley self appointed to omit Item 3. This can happen with an e-mail between the five and then this thing never goes away! Conclusion: This document allows the five appointed foundation committee members to operate, on any matter, at all levels of the class, publicly on-behalf the class, with funding, without vote of the membership, as they see fit. And, grants a vehicle to anyone who contributes to the fund. If we the members want this sort of thing, A Foundation, it needs to be brought to light before it is enacted. Not after. Who are these people, the current leaders of FSSA, enacting a change of this magnitude without presenting it prior to inception? Summary: Directed change by our leadership under false pretense behind closed doors establishing a radical change that grants power over the existing Constitution is Grounds For Dismissal. That is where I think this should go from here. Thank you for your consideration, David Neff FS 5609

Comments

I was also very concerned with part 7 item 4.

I was also very concerned with part 7 item 4. The idea that a group is going to look at how to improve the construction of the boats is crazy. One of the virtues of a Scot is extreme durability. If you made construction changes and the boat weighs the same, my guess is that you would tweak the stiffness of the hull, or the stiffness and foil shape of the centerboard. If there is some current structural deficiency, it is up to the builder to address it and the measurer to enforce the specs of the boat. Either of the changes would create a "new boat" arms race, and make the old boats obsolete. The fact my my boat, made in 1985 can largely hang in there with boats made this year, is why this class is strong. We have boats from the sixties in our fleet, and they are competitive too. Let's not mess that up, Phil Scheetz FS 4086

Phil Scheetz

FS 4086

Fleet 163, Nockamixon Sail Club