changes, continued

changes, continued

Peter Huston’s ISAF article, continued….

From: Peter Huston
Sent: den 1 oktober 2010 03:06
To: Göran Petersson
Subject: Request for comment for article publication


I am going to write an article for Sailing Anarchy on the subject of the proposed changes to the ISAF Constitution.  I understand the fundamental reason for the changes being led by the Isle of Man and the vetting requirements vis a vis vetting Board members for money laundering purposes, but, I would like to better understand your position on this proposed section, pasted below.

What assurance will the world sailing community have that the ISAF Executive will not use this proposed wording, if accepted, to do whatever it pleases, irrespective of what classes, member national authorities, or ISAF subcommittees recommend or want?

I will be submitting this article next week, so that should give you ample time to respond directly to me.  Should you fail to respond, I will note that in the article.

Thank you,
Peter Huston

Proposed Constitution
68. (a)  The Executive Committee shall be responsible for implementing the policy decisions of the Council and for taking all management and operational decisions on behalf of the Federation. The Executive Committee may seek such advice as it considers appropriate and shall work in close collaboration with the Chairmen of committees established by the Council. Following each Executive Committee meeting, a memorandum of the meeting’s decisions shall be distributed to the national authorities, members of the Council and committee chairmen.

(b)  The Executive Committee has full responsibility for managing the corporate and financial affairs of the Federation. 

(c)  In all its actions and deliberations the Executive Committee shall report to the Council.


Dear Peter

I found your email in my office today.

As you quite rightly say the reason for these changes is to operate ISAF as a limited Company in accordance with the principles of Company Law.

The decision making power with regard to all sport or sailing matters will remain with the ISAF Council as per article 43:

43. The Council shall be responsible for:

(a) managing the sport of Yachting, including (notwithstanding the powers of the General Assembly) the receiving, consideration and determination of policy proposals referred to it by the General Assembly; and

(b) promoting and (subject to Article 68) carrying out the aims and objects of the Federation,

 and shall have all necessary powers of the Federation to discharge such responsibilities, save for those powers that by the Act or by these Articles are required to be exercised by, or under the direction of, the Executive Committee (including those matters set out in Article 68) or at a General Meeting, and subject to:

(c)  any Regulations in force that have been reviewed by the General Assembly,

(d)  the provisions of the Acts;

(e)  any Regulations prescribed by the Council, but not yet reviewed by a General Assembly, provided that failure of the General Assembly to review any such Regulation shall not invalidate retroactively acts by the Council done pursuant to such Regulation.

One more comment: You refer to the Executive Committee doing things irrespective of what the members (classes, mna’s) want. I would like to point out that the Executive Committee is the only elected body in the Federation, directly elected by the Members and directly accountable to the members in an AGM every year. The Council, Committees and Sub-Committees are appointed.

Göran Petersson


Sent: 07 October 2010 15:00
To: Pete rHuston
Subject: Re: FW: Comment for article publication


I think Goran puts the points forward very well.
My observations are these which diffuses Sprague’s arguments:

1) There are checks and balances with the Executive, MNA’s/AGM and Council.
2) Executive is the only elected body voted on by all 120 MNA’s.
3) Council is appointed and represents regional biases and individuals are in for 4 years.
Council members are nominated by MNA’s but subject to Group numbers.
Group P has 3 seats and by mutual agreement USSA gets 2 and Canada 1.
Many other Groups have same arrangements.
Sprague is nominated by Canada and must put forward the CYA position but has the right to vote as he sees fit. Canada has the right to tell ISAGF that Sprague does not have their confidence.
4)  USSA and Canada endorses whomever the other MNA nominates..
5) All Executive and Council actions are up for scrutiny every year by the AGM which is a forum of all 120 MNA’s.


From: Jerome Pels
Subject: RE: FW: Comment for article publication
Date: Thursday, October 7, 2010, 10:23 AM

Thanks Paul.

You are 100% right on this.

The thing that triggered whole thing was: When the banking crisis started, ISAF was exposed because we held all our money with RBS and Natwest who actually had ‘merged’ into one bank. The Executive instructed me to ‘spread’ the risk over several banks:  I went to the Isle of Man and talked to all the banks and they wouldn’t have our money because we had 39 Directors from all over the World. The banks are responsible for due diligence on all Directors before doing business with a new client….

Next practical problem is the due diligence (Interpol checks as you refer to) for the alternates. As you know we always have 4-5 Council members putting somebody else in the chair.

According to the latest rules we cant do this until they are ‘cleared’ and accepted by the Isle of Man authorities, which actually means we can’t accept alternates unless submitted with all the paperwork 3 months before the meeting..

Best regards,