MYC Discussion Blog

Rock markers

noreply@blogger.com (Curt) — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 23:41:00 +0000

The rock markers are in.

The way they were placed was by information passed down over the ages beginning not in biblical times as one my think because we do this every year during Passover and Easter, but through campfire discussions started by the Massapoag Indians who once traveled our lake.

The markers are in about 20 +- feet of water "today"... This gives you plenty of safe margin when the water level drops from the 11.5' level today to the usual 9.5' average in August. Taking into consideration the prevailing southwesterly wind and the estimated slack from the 17' to 22' chains once the water level drops a few feet and centerboards of between 3' and 5', you will not hit rocks. Stay outside the markers! I can't say anything else.

The mark at Flat Rock is closer that you think. Stay away!

If you are to chance going inside these marks, good luck. You may make it and say how stupid those idiots were and how much more lake is available or you may thank those who know how you sail and are looking out for your best interest.

Whatever you decide, have a great sailing year......

Not since 1998

noreply@blogger.com (Curt) — Tue, 30 Mar 2010 14:02:00 +0000

http://ma.water.usgs.gov/floods/flood.pdf

No BURN Policy

noreply@blogger.com (Curt) — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:42:00 +0000

Please consider a "no burn policy" at this years work party. For all of the health reasons against burning, we can easily put limbs and excess brush around the perimeter and burning just plain stinks. What a great way to spoil spring and more....

Boston and Graves lights on the equinox 2010

noreply@blogger.com (Curt) — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 22:33:00 +0000

Night Sailing on Massapoag

noreply@blogger.com (Curt) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:03:00 +0000

Great article in BoatUS Magazine regarding night sailing. If you have never sailed after dusk, join other Club members on July 23rd at our moonlight sail.

http://www.boatusmagazine.com/boatus/20100102#pg1

Night Sailing on Massapoag

noreply@blogger.com (Curt) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 14:01:00 +0000

Moonlight Cruise coming July 23rd with a very famous entertainer in a private showing just for our members and their guests. Limited participation due to boat capacities. If we increase the boats participating, we can accommodate more people. More boats, more people, more fun....JULY 23, 2010.

Robert's Rules

noreply@blogger.com (Curt) — Sat, 16 Jan 2010 14:09:00 +0000

During our Club meetings, members have been exuberantly referring to “Robert’s Rules” to be the governing authority to our meeting procedures. I've spoken with an expert in Parliamentary Procedures (and not a member). His brief explanation was they were intended to keep order, prevent deadlocks and basically keep meetings moving along. Roberts Rules were first written in the later 1800’s and since revised numerous times to keep up with society’s changes. It would be correct to mention which revision is in use at the time of reference.

The article below was taken from the By-Laws of our Club.

ARTICLE IV - MEETINGS OF THE CORPORATION

Section 5. Roberts Rules of Order shall be the authority for procedure of conducting meetings if otherwise not provided herein.

The following was taken from Robert’s Rules guide.

It must be remembered that, in those cases in which the bylaws or other governing documents of an organization refer to "Robert's Rules of Order," the book is merely a default source of authority and is subordinate to other rules. For example, a nonprofit corporation is governed (in descending order of priority) by state law, the articles of incorporation, the bylaws, and resolutions of the board of directors. Only when those sources fail to provide the answer is it appropriate to refer to "Robert's Rules of Order."

noreply@blogger.com (chpowersource) — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:03:00 +0000

Eric Aker and Gary Werden are running for the MYC Board of Directors and we ask for your vote!
There is a formal election of officers at the Thursday, January 14^th meeting, and we would like to run Treasurer and Vice-Commodore. We submitted our names to the Nominating Committee, where our supporters were out voted by committee members currently on the board or their spouses. Please read on to see our qualifications, our “platform”, and some of our hopes for MYC.

We each have the following qualifications:

Qualifications	What They Mean
Have owned and managed successful businesses	Understand business, accounting and management
Are avid, passionate sailors & reci-pients of the Commodore’s Trophy	Understand sailing and sailors and their concerns
Have owned and sailed several different types of boats	Appreciate and respect the differences in sailing and racing various boats
Have sailed in numerous regional and national regattas	Exposed to variety of competitive event structures and club governments
Are long term members of MYC with a history of volunteerism	Demonstrated willingness to contribute time, effort, and talent

Additionally, Gary has US Sailing certification as a Level 1 and Level 2 instructor and is a Certified Race Officer.

Platform:

As Board members, we would be dedicated to helping all members optimize their sailing and racing experiences at the club. We would recognize the evolution of the sailing membership and evolve along with it. We would try to learn what sailing activities the club can offer to those who aren’t sailing much now. Without diminishing traditional “serious” racing, we would like to introduce more opportunity for less serious racing and sailing. Also, we hope to get more people sailing by fostering more sailing instruction and coaching for all ages and skill levels.

(We’ve done it before. For several weeks in 2005, we hosted a women’s Sunday morning sailing clinic that brought many new sailors to the lake. In addition, we have repeatedly incorporated coaching into our Thursday and Saturday small boat racing activities.)

We would support the independence of significant subgroups within the club (e.g. the individual fleets) to design and organize their own programs. It should not be “one size fits all.” For example, if the Daysailers want to score their summer racing as one series instead of two, they should certainly be allowed to do so. We want to present a, “How can we help you?” attitude to every interested subgroup or individual member.

We would promote a decision making process that includes all the members in a meaningful way.

We would assign ourselves as many race and dinner duties as other members have.

Overall, we hope that the club administration can become more transparent and more participatory. We believe that more participation in club government and more participation in club sailing are likely to go hand in hand; each promotes the other.

If you made it this far, thank you for your time. Come out to vote if you can. If not, email the club secretary with your support. Maybe those allowed to vote will be influenced by your email.

P.S. Eric will be out of the country on January 14, the date to which the January meeting was rescheduled. Gary may also have to be out of state visiting his ailing, elderly father. So, one or both of us (along with our spouses) will be unable to vote per the current voting policy.

noreply@blogger.com (DKampf) — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 04:02:00 +0000

As of this night's meeting, the Board of Directors for 2010 are:

Diane Kampf - Commodore
Dennis Dubuc - Vice Commodore
Gene Neault - Rear Commodore
Evan Locke - Past Commodore
Randy Rubinstein - Treasurer
Charlie Cullinan - Secretary
Dan Abram - Director-at-Large

Please give your Board your support and feel free to reach out to me or any other Board member or Committee Chair with questions, suggestions, ideas. I welcome your input via this blog, email, by phone, and of course, in person! See you on the water.

Thanks,
Diane

MYC Banquet 2009

noreply@blogger.com (DKampf) — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:02:00 +0000

At the Annual MYC Banquet, we honored our Commodore Evan Locke, awarded certiicates of appreciation, Racing Series trophies and MYC perpetual awards. We also unveiled a new beautiful Commodore's Plaque with 120 plates on it, 63 of which are engraved with our Commodore's names. We are hoping to have a case built for it at the Club so that during the season we can proudly display and share it.

We also awarded the perpetual awards including:

Commodore's Award (big boats) - Randy Rubinstein
Commodore's Award (small boats) - Eric Aker
Most Improved Skiupper - Steve Gilmsn
Elsie Moorhouse Crew Award - Diane Kampf
Ingall's Memorial Award - Greg and Diane Kampf
Ed Isgur Award - Harvey Davidson
Hat rack - Rich Hirsch

Rich Hirsch and his band played at the event and we often filled the dance floor with many of us dnacing while they played. It was a nice event and we hope more of you can join us next year.

More ways to Participate - Board, Committees, Events, Blog

noreply@blogger.com (DKampf) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:42:00 +0000

There are lots of ways to get involved in the Club and maybe you are not really aware of them all. Some take more time than others, some are one time events. No matter what, these ideas will help you get involved, will help you know more and more of your fellow members. Here are a few ideas - comment on this blog if you have any more ideas:

> You can come to one or more meetings and see hwo the Club functions and become a part of working to make it better

> You can sign up to run for an Office - just let the Nominating Committee know by sending email to goldstem@comcast.net

> You can volunteer to chair an existing committee - let a Board Member know or if there is a current chairperson, let that person know

> You can volunteer to participate in an existing committee - let a Board Member know or if there is a current chairperson, let that person know

> Propose or form a new committee - let a Board member know or come to ma meeting and propose your committee

> Volunteer to run an event - a small one to begin with e.g. chair a dinner or provide refreshments for a work party - they'll love you for that.

> Write a Blog to share your ideas or add comments to an existing Blog

I'm sure you can think of other ways to get involved. Its YOUR Club - keep it going strong!!!

MYC is Up For 2 Prestigious US Sailing Awards

noreply@blogger.com (DKampf) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:30:00 +0000

Did you know that the MYC 60th Annual Regatta has been nominated as One Design Regatta of the Year by US Sailing? Did you know that MYC has been nominated for One Design Club of the Year by US Sailing? Can you believe it - our little Club? We are like the Little Engine that Could. Who knows where this will all land, e may win, we may not. But just being asked to be a part of these 2 prestigious awards is exciting and we should be proud of our Massapoag Yacht Club!

What MYC Thinks About Online Voting...

noreply@blogger.com (Annie) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:55:00 +0000

Online voting was the main focus of the survey taken in May, 2009. I’d like to get the results of that survey pertaining to online voting on the record by including them here on the blog. What follows are the answers to the following question:
Assuming that a reliable and efficient online process could be established, should members be entitled to vote online whether or not they attend business meetings?

Yes         No        Unsure
47.5%    44.1%     8.5%
28          26           5

It is interesting to note that almost all of those voting “No” also said that they did not believe it would be possible to conduct online voting in a reliable and efficient manner. The report of the Participation Committee at the November MYC meeting attempted to demonstrate how online voting could be handled. While there was much opposition to online voting voiced after hearing the report, no one argued that online voting was not readily feasible. This presentation was distributed by Diane Kampf about a week before that meeting and remains available upon request.

I am also including below most of the comments on electronic voting (versus voting only by meeting attendees) made by the survey respondents in May. While there is a lot of material here, I believe that those who want to understand what members are feeling will find the time to read these comments as well as consider the final totals before making any decision about adopting or rejecting online voting.
==========================================================
Attendance at a meeting should not be a voting requirement any more than attendance at a presidential debate should be a requirement for voting for president. Claiming that non-attendees are ill informed is merely a way that one group exerts power over another. All arguments in favor or against a motion can be communicated in writing and the motions can be communicated in writing. Anything that can not stand up to this test should not be passed. The suggestion that voters need to attend meetings and see facial expressions, hear emotions, and hear voice intonations in order to evaluate an idea is ridiculous. Any motion that only makes sense in the context of a meeting is not worthy of passage. Meeting attendance is an obstacle to participation for many of us with busy lives.

I feel that participation in the club should be hands-on, in the company of our fellow members. Sitting back at a computer is too impersonal and does not foster the consensus building that meeting in person provides. Most importantly, no matter how efficient an online process might be, it will be an additional burden on the members responsible for administering the process. No voting process can be as simple as counting hands at a meeting.

It seems to me to come down to prefering democracy over government by the few. Town meetings are fine as a forum for discussion of issues, but they are not superior to other discussion forums...just different. Each forum has good points and bad points. Why not use more than one? Using a Town Meeting to make decisions seems antiquated. We can give everyone a vote now! The people who attend meetings now are not necessarily better members than the rest of the membership. There are many ways in which a member can contribute, and in a democracy, we don't just award the right to vote to the elite anyway. Every member has a stake in the issues that come to a vote, and every member should have a workable means to exercise their vote... every time. As it is, we may need a vote of the few to authorize a change to permit everyone to vote. Can we rely on the integrity of those few or will they try to protect their power?

If they want to vote they should show up at the meeting.

Yes, but............... The reason for having a democratic system is to avoid having to make a decision by majority vote every time. None of us is asked to go to the polls annually to approve the federal budget. We TRUST our leadership for this. Hence, voting YES, but only for specific cases where clear alternatives have been established. At all cost avoid having too many cooks in the kitchen.

I'm concerned that votes will be cast based on lobbying by other members rather than the facts and issues. It's much easier to vote than to wade through the online discussion, assuming there even is one.

The process of being in the room, of having participated in and hearing all viewpoints is critical. too often one believes that critical thinking and discussion has not taken place, and doesn't realize the views that have already been expressed and how compromises have been worked through.

The club seems to have a three classes of members, board members who make most of the important decisions (and choose their successors), meeting attendees who vote on a limited number of club issues and usually endorse the board, and the rest, who can be ignored by the first two. If that structure is not built into the by-laws, current practice has made it so. I can't think of a successful initiative that has come from a non-board member since the building of the club house. This is not democracy and this is not a healthy way to run an organization. At some point incentives like gifts were tried as an inducement for meeting attendance. It failed. Compulsion will fail. Electronic communication is the best available option on the table to increase participation in governance. If we stop short of voting electronically, I suspect that in the end, electronic communication will wither and die. Just my opinion.

The ideal is for people to attend those meetings in person to participate in face to face discussions, and I admire the people who regularly do so - they are the pillars of the club. However I know many of us have very busy lives and cannot participate in these meetings as much as we would like so I applaud this effort to find a way to include more members in the discussions and the decision making.

I believe that with advancing technology online discussion is already taking place via email, and will soon spread to other modalities (chat rooms, message boards, blogs, forums, Facebook, Twitter, etc.) with or without the official club blessing. It would be best for the club to embrace it, and make it that much more convenient for members. Either way, I'm optimistic that the club will greatly benefit from a much more open process in the months and years to come. A great deal of creativity and energy will be unleashed. With so much more discussion and participation happening online, it seems a given that sooner or later a large portion of the membership will insist on being able to vote electronically.

We have a problem with meeting our quorum requirement. I do not see electronic voting as an appropriate solution to that problem. I believe that we should relax the quorum requirement.

The downside of on line voting is that you won't know the results instantly. will need to establish time limits for voting.

I think ideas from all of the club members are important to establish the fabric of our club. We need to understand what we actually have here. We need to find out what this club consists of. Where the interests lie, and come to an understanding of what we really need to be voting on. Until then I feel that we will have some power plays going on and maybe we can seek out the problems and deal with them head on Make MYC a better club for all.

I hope people aren't reluctant to support voting because they are afraid of bad online voting procedures. Many large organizations conduct voting this way, and the club need not tolerate anything less than a good voting mechanism. If people just don't believe it, we should test the approach... do it on a provisional basis. I also worry that folks envison a less than optimal discussion/voting approach and may respond negatively to their vision. Before any online voting is introduced, the detailed procedures and devices will have to be worked out, and this should be done after seeking input from all the members.

Adopting some electronic method for discussion and/or voting and a rewrite of the bylaws may help make our governing process more efficient and inclusive, but simply adopting a more formal process to our meetings and educating members in what is appropriate and acceptable behavior in our meeting process will lead to more participation by members who don't currently wish to participate because they are frustrated by what often occurs at current meetings. Controlled electronic discussion of the issues is positive and will provide an accurate record of the discussions and the opinions of members on the issues outside of the formal business meeting. But if the electronic discussion is allowed to digress into inappropriate personal discussions unrelated to the issues then there will be no improvement over our current meeting process and thus will not contribute to a more inclusive and efficient governing process.

These are difficult questions with a lot of unknowns. The whole thing with on-line participation by members is also an unknow. Perhaps some type of pliot, or as suggested above, on-line discussion / voting in the absense of a quorum could be tried out for 6 months, and evaluated based on that experience.

I realize how much work this is but it really would get much more input from many more members.

This is the best solution to an age old problem...I work many nights...others have child care issues...some of our members live far away...It also gives time for thought on issues. This survey is a great example of what can be done. Good job to who designed it!!!!!

It seems that we are making more of this than we need to. We are just a sailing club after all. Our goal should be to make sailing safe and enjoyable for all those who wish to. It seems we are creating a bureaucracy and positions of power that go beyond the intent of the club. Clearly, we need rules and guidelines to ensure the well-being and safety of all members as well as to promote sailing and the enjoyment it brings. When we start imposing mandatory rules we are then moving away from a group of people who love sailing toward a system of control that requires more attention to doing things properly and correctly. It is a move away from the heart to the intellect; away from our passion to that of cold reason and intellect. I would suggest that we be cautious and attempt to maintain a balance between our hearts and our reasoning. We need rules and guidelines but the fundamental element of this club is our passion for sailing not in who votes for what or how they vote. We need to keep our focus.

I am satisfied with the way the Club is run and would come to meetings or approach a Board memebr if I was dissatisfied. I use the Club for pleasure and do not currently feel the need to get involved in other ways.

Although fewer votes are cast by the current system than might be via electronic voting, I believe that the quality of each vote is far greater.

We think electronic discussions would enhance the exchange of ideas. We are opposed to electronic voting. There could be some exceptions made for exigent circumstances, such as medical.

This is the worse idea to come before MYC in 20 years.

I personally am satisfied with the current process and bylaws. I stated before the quorum was established for a reason and should be maintained as is.

I really am on the fence about this issue. It would be nice to have more member participation in club decision making. However I have strong qualms about putting things in writing -- invariably there are misunderstandings and hurt feelings, especially if it's a sensitive topic that is being discussed. Also, it is way too easy to hit the send button -- either on purpose or accidentally before editing what one has written. I do like this survey forum as a way of gathering data and information on what club members think about a topic. It allows anonymity and yet the board or a committee can proceed in a logical manner on whatever issue is at hand.

I like that we are considering advanced technology to better the Club. Of course, the devil is in the details and how we achieve and maintain controls will make it a success or not.

ONLY CONCERN IS THAT AGENDA ITEMS ARE DISCUSSED AT MEETINGS PRIOR TO VOTE AND THEIR PROS AND CONS MAY SWAY YOUR VOTE. ONLINE PARTICIPANTS WILL MISS DISCUSSION AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION.

Require Meeting Attendance?

noreply@blogger.com (Annie) — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:00:00 +0000

FYI, when earlier this year we asked MYC members, "Should each voting household be required to attend some meetings each year?", this was the response:

No       Unsure    Yes, one    Yes, two    Yes, three    Yes, all
65.5%    9%           17%            9%           0%               0%
38          5              10             5            0                0
Here are some of the comments that accompanied their answers:

The more I am "required" for recreation, the less interested, especially when the health and safety of me and my family are not directly affected. I will be sure not to negatively impact other members ability to participate by my decisions and if I do, I expect to be told I am, at which time I will cease those activities.

Such a requirement is totally unenforceable unless we are willing to expel a sizable percentage of the club.

This is inappropriate. We have many members who contribute in many ways, and have done so for years, but circumstances prevent meeting attendance.

We should be looking for ways to reduce, not increase the burdens on the members.

… lack of attendence itself generally should be considered a vote of confidence in those who do attend.

I think it would be impossible to create a fair list of acceptable exceptions or to assess appropriate penalties, and following up on all this would be a lot of work.

I don't think you can require members to attend membership meetings. I see why work parties and saftey seminars are required, but not membership meetings.

Just like anywhere else, if you find something important enough to you, you will take the initiative to engage.

I think this would be very hard to enforce -- after all the club is a voluntary, recreational activity. If people don't want to get involved, they have to live with the decisions of those who participate.

If a household is not interested in the meetings, there is no reason to make them come to a meeting.

This may be a good solution.

This should be optional, you can't fource people to care or get involved if they don't wish to.

Why would we force members to participate if they are uninterested?

I don't take attendance among students. They are adults I expect them to act that way. I expect the same from the MYC membership. (I realize that this is probably unrealistic.)

While it is important to attend meetings, the few that are important to the running of the club, it is hard to "require" attendance. It is "strongly requested" to have the membership attend because of the few days we have to conduct our club business and make decisions that can effect every member whether attending or not. Encouraging attendance is still the best solution but getting the quorum to each meeting to allow a proper representation of the membership is the request of the regular attendees.

MYC is a club that people choose to join because of a common interest in sailing. To make meetings a requirement could pose a hardship on some families due to circumstances that are none of the club's business and potentially result in loss of members. To go to a meeting should remain a choice.

Proposed By-law Changes - A Summary

noreply@blogger.com (Annie) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:10:00 +0000

To make it easier to understand the proposed by-law changes, I compared the ones in the 2009 packet to the new proposed by-laws. In this way, I could see what the language used to be as well as what the proposed text is. I summarized most changes and am including them here so others may benefit from my effort. If anyone on the committee sees any misrepresentation in my summary, please let me know ASAP, and I'll make the correction.
It would be helpful to know what the impetus was for many of the changes.
Notes in blue italics are my explanatory comments on the proposed by-law change.
Notes in red reflect my opinions.

Changes regarding meetings and voting:
1. (Article IV, Section 2) Change would add a regular club meeting in February.

2. (Article IV, Section 4) Change would reduce the quorum for a meeting from 40% of (~120) voting members (e.g.~ 48) to 25% of (~65) voting families (e.g.~ 16 members) and would also presume a quorum unless one were called for.
   • While reducing the quorum by basing it on family memberships vs. individual members, the change would continue to allow both husband and wife within a single membership to be counted toward that quorum. i.e. 8 couples could make up a quorum.
   • Per Diane Kampf, the typical number of members attending meetings for several years has been between 10-15 plus Board members.
   • We need to understand the intention and the context of this proposed change.
       a. If voting is restricted to meetings, then reducing the quorum would mean that a very small minority of people could make decisions for the club. (The survey taken earlier this year indicated that only 30.5% favored reducing the quorum.)
       b. If voting is extended to non-meeting attendees by electronic balloting, then reducing the quorum would mean that meetings could continue to be conducted with a small minority of members, but that the entire voting membership would still have the opportunity to make decisions affecting the club. i.e. The quorum applies to conducting business at a meeting, not to voting.
   I'd be okay with the latter, but not the former.

3. (Throughout the proposed By-laws) Changes to remove most language that implies that member voting occurs at meetings. Also, changes to allow for electronic notifications instead of current language that implies notifications are hardcopy or mailed. Good stuff.

4. (Article V, Section 3) Change would allow majority versus 2/3 vote to remove an officer or director.
What's the impetus for this proposed change?

5. (Article VIII, Section 6) Change would give provisional members the right to vote.
I agree with this.

Changes which would reflect increases to the powers and duties of the Board:

6. (Article VI, Section 3a) Change to increase the limit to $2000 on expenditures over which Board must get member approval. This limit could be increased to a larger threshold set at the last meeting of the year by a majority vote.
The wording unintentionally implies voting by meeting attendees here? Perhaps it should also say to “adjust” the limit rather than just allow approval of a greater amount?

7. (Article VI, Section 3c) Change to say that a Board member would be an ex officio member of every committee.   Why? I think this is unnecessary.   The Board need not be so deeply involved in everything. Committees' recommendations should be subject to member approval, and the Board can offer its judgment on the findings and proposals as it does for everything else. Also, this rule could cause a large burden on Board members and perhaps cause bottlenecks to committee productivity. (Note: The Small Boat Storage committee had no Board member.)

8. (Article VI, Section 3e) Change to allow the Board to promulgate and enforce any policies as well as rules or regulations “deemed necessary for the optimum operation of the Club.”

9. (Article VI, Section 3f) Change to add, “To establish schedules of events for the current and upcoming season,” to the expressed powers of the Board.

10. (Article VII, Section 1) Change to allow the commodore to appoint more than 3 members to the nominating committee.
The Commodore has done that this year. The 2009 nominating committee is composed of one non-Board member, one Board member, and three spouses of a Board member.   Pretty Board heavy. I have no problem with the number on the committee, but I wonder if we need some guidelines on the types of members to be targeted for this committee, etc.

11. (Article VIII, Section 11 and Article IX, Section 2) Change indicating that the Board would now have to approve any reinstatement of former members applying to the membership committee to rejoin the club. The Board would also establish the dues for such returning members.
Why should the Board be given these powers?

12. (Article IX, Section 4) Change adding explicit language saying the Board of Directors could now assess fees that “cover the cost of use of the Club’s property.
I find this clause very troubling. What use of the club would this apply and not apply to? I think fees should be set by the members, not the Board.

13. (Article IX, Section 5) Change would make it a responsibility, not a right, of the Board to recommend fees to cover the cost of special expenditures.

14. (Article X, Section 4) Change giving the Board the right to assess fees for late payment of dues.

Changes relating to memberships

15. (Article VIII, Section 9) Change to create a new membership type, Emeritus, for members of at least 10 years who no longer wish to sail. This membership would have no race duty and reduced dues at the discretion of the Board. It would not count toward the total member count and the Board could decide how many could exist at any one time.
This whole idea should be discussed by the members before a by-law change is proposed. If we do have this, I think the dues for this membership type should be set by the membership, not the Board.

16. (Article VIII, Section 4) A change that would reduce the age requirement for regular members to 18 and over, from 21 and over.
If a person wants to be a full voting member at 18, I'd be okay with that. However, I wouldn't force juniors to convert to this membership type.

17. (Article VIII, Section 7) Change so that junior members could be 5 to 18 or if still in school, up to 24 yrs old. Former junior members who no longer qualified due to age or leaving school would not have any club privileges per explicit policy.
It seems all these changes (see below) to reduce junior status to under 18 from under 21 could just make it harder for young people to be a member of the club. i.e. They have to become full members paying full dues 3 years earlier. Do I misunderstand? I wouldn't be in favor of that.

18. (Article VIII, Section 8) Change so that special junior members could be between 15 and 18 (instead of 21), or if still in school, up to 24 yrs old.

19. (Article VIII, Section 13) Change to the membership committee so its chairperson would be elected by the members at the annual meeting rather than appointed by the commodore.
Unintentional implication that voting has to be at a meeting? Also, unclear if chairperson is to be one of the six or a seventh committee member.

20. (Article, X, Section 2) Change would give members 30 days, instead of 14, from date of delinquency notification to pay their dues before they could be expelled from the club.

Participation and patients

noreply@blogger.com (Curt) — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:37:00 +0000

There are some very good ideas on how the Club should run etc.. The major issue as I see it is the low number of participants at business meetings. Not the by-laws, not the number of regattas, not the canceled events, not the electronic voting. It is purely the low number of participants we need to take the next step. This leaves a few who are forced to make decisions for the majority because they are dedicated to keeping the Club in operation and moving forward. I applaud the few that are sticking with it. I don't know why the numbers are down. I wish I had an answer and a solution. We have 70 or so families and participation at the business meetings is far less than what we need to make any changes in the current structure or methods without breaking existing rules or offending someone. The process as it stands, again in my opinion, is as good as one could ask for. Sure there are things I would like to see changed as well as maintained but we are at a real crossroad and without consistently larger participation at the business meetings, the Board is left with no other alternative than to make the decisions they feel would best fit the majority and are consistent with the current guidelines. Again, in my opinion, they do as well as one could ask for. If we do anything, it would be to keep the flow of ideas coming in. They do get considered and reconsidered and they will get acted on. It will just take a little longer without more participation and help from the membership. Could be someone will have a great idea to increase participation.

This Person’s Democracy

noreply@blogger.com (Annie) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 23:04:00 +0000

Since the last business meeting I have read on the blog that at least 3 people are not happy with the way our Club is being run. In fact, I sense anger in the tone of their postings. While is the right of every one of us to be able to question authority, we must understand that we currently have the means to not only voice our opinion but we also have the ability in place to make change and our current By-laws provide for this. Our By-Laws are akin to the Constitution of the United States of America. While they have been amended over the year, so have ours. The last time that our by-laws were changed was in 1990, the year that I was Commodore. That was at a time when there was a change needed to provide for the continuation of the Club as an ongoing organization. There was no waiting list of applicants and our membership was dwindling compared to the current list of 15. Our facilities needed major upgrading and our sailing & race support equipment was in dismal shape. (Compare that to what we have now) It was apparent that change was needed. We started with the By-Laws. We came up with all kinds of ideas but with the help and wisdom of the late Larry Lawrence we made very few but critical changes. These allowed us the ability to survive and gave also gave us the ability operate our Club as it needed to operate. We presented these changes to our membership and while I do not the exact count, it was most attended meeting that I can ever remember. Our changes were explained and voted on. It passed unanimously.

Well, while we do not have the issues we once had, we are at that time again and I am grateful that those By-laws are going to provide for me to have a say and a vote.

It is also my opinion that the current By-laws do provide for our Club to open up our meetings to electronic voting. It tells us that voting has to be done “at a meeting”. Our By-laws to not define the word meeting but all of the dictionaries that I checked use the term “a coming together of people for a purpose”. We can still do that with the addition electronic means. However, meeting and voting can and should all be done at the same time.

I also caution the current By-law committee to limit their changes to only what is necessary and not to add what can be handled by policy changes. They are not one in the same.

Most of all since we currently have the ability to control our own future, the Club needs to have every one that can possibly come to the meeting on 11/5 to be there. This is not only this person’s Democracy at work but it is also Your Democracy at work.

Dennis Dubuc

Bylaws Committee - A Minority Report

noreply@blogger.com (Eric) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:13:00 +0000

As a member of the Bylaws Committee, I would like to express another point of view regarding the Committee’s proposal for revised Bylaws. I strongly oppose the current proposal which appears to me to be rather one-sided. It gives new powers to the Board (setting fees for example), but most importantly, it all but eliminates the quorum requirement for business meetings. A handful of members at a meeting (theoretically as few as two) could make major changes to the club rules, fees, programs, budget, or even Bylaws which would be very difficult or impossible to reverse later. The Bylaws need to provide some assurance that a substantial portion of the membership is involved in major decisions. In my view, those who support the proposed Bylaws should be careful what they wish for.

Based on the e-voting survey results and comments last summer, the MYC membership appears to be about evenly split* over philosophical issues involving voting rights and democracy at our club. Some are happy to cede control to a tiny minority of the membership, the Board or a small number of members who have the time and inclination to attend lengthy business meetings. They feel that if members don't make the effort to attend a meeting, they should forfeit their right to vote. Others feel that whenever possible and practical, the whole membership should have the opportunity to participate in discussions and vote, electronically or otherwise, to better represent the vast majority of the members who find it difficult or impossible to attend business meetings. This would also draw larger numbers of members with creative new ideas into the process, and hopefully result in greater participation, on and off the water.

These are not just abstract philosophical issues. Your ability to participate and vote in a convenient manner can have a dramatic impact on your dues, duty requirements, privileges, club programs, and the whole character of the club going forward.

In order to change our Bylaws, the current Bylaws clearly require a two-thirds approval at a meeting with a quorum of two-fifths of the voting members present. It seems highly unlikely that the current one-sided proposal could possibly pass. Some sort of a compromise appears to be needed to accommodate both sides of the issue. Any suggestions would be most welcome.

Currently we are in the awkward position of having Bylaws which are very difficult or impossible to live up to. A two-fifths quorum is required for business to be conducted at a business meeting which we typically don’t come close to achieving. Theoretically, any business conducted at a meeting without such a quorum is invalid as per our Bylaws as well as Robert’s Rules to which our Bylaws refer. Until we can find a broadly acceptable way to revise our Bylaws, my suggestion would be for everyone to try to live up to the letter of our Bylaws whenever possible, and to do our best to live up to the spirit of the Bylaws whenever it is not. The purpose of a quorum is to include a substantial portion of the membership when conducting business. Lets try to be as inclusive as possible for all the members whenever we can.

Please comment, whether you agree or disagree with my perspective.

Eric Aker

* For example, the survey of the whole membership showed a few more members to be in favor of e-voting than against it.

Just To Be Fair

noreply@blogger.com (Gary) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 18:37:00 +0000

Every organization needs to be built on the foundation of “fairness,” so that every individual associated with the organization is treated in the way he or she deserves.

Several years ago our club was presented with a test of fairness when a member bemoaned that he had moved to the city and no longer had room to store his boat at his home in the winter. He also had no place to store a trailer in the summer. He very politely asked the Board if he could leave his boat at the club in the winter and his trailer in the summer. He offered to pay the club for the privilege. The board acknowledged his hardship and accepted his generous contribution. Concurrently, the Board questioned the “fairness” of this special solution. The Board was concerned that this could pose several problems to the club in terms of the club’s appearance and the inconvenience of having boats in the way for the spring work party. Nevertheless, it was concluded that the “fair” thing to do was to offer the same benefit to others. Realizing that many members might accept this convenience, thus exacerbating the perceived problems, a “fair” way to set limits had to be established. A fee for storage was introduced to allow but deter a historically prohibited practice.

Years later, the beneficiaries of this fairness observed that others stored their smaller boats on racks for the winter, and began to question if it was “fair” for the small boaters to store for free when the larger boaters paid a fee. For 60 years, the storage of small boats posed little or no difficulties for the club, but it was only “fair” that they should pay if the larger boats paid.

It also stands to reason that it is probably “unfair” that some members enjoy the benefit of having other club members or high school sailors install and remove their moorings while others get no similar benefit. Members used to deal with their own moorings, but there were so many problems that the Board decided a mooring committee could do a much better job - and they have! It is now time to address the “fairness” issue that has some receiving a substantial benefit that other don’t enjoy. What is a “fair” fee for this service?

As our clubhouse became popular for private parties, our Board realized that dumpsters filled up a little sooner when there were private parties. They reasoned that water, propane, and electricity use might likewise increase. It was only “fair” that the users should compensate the other club members for these extra costs.

With the proliferation of Lasers, Sunfish, canoes and kayaks it has become apparent to many that some folks in the club have more than one boat. It only stands to reason that members with multiple boats might use the club more than those with only one boat. That seems “unfair,” and the only way to make it “fair” is for the multiple boat owners to pay a little more – their “fair” share so to speak.

Let’s see… the Scots, the Day Sailers, and the other big boats are the only boats utilizing the docks which surely cost a significant amount to maintain, but the Sunfish, paddle boats, and Lasers are stored on cradles, racks, and platforms which must cost something as well. So, to be fair, we need to charge members in accordance with how many boats of each type they keep on these club resources. Gees! Better have a dinghy fee as well… gotta be fair to all the people who don’t have them. We’re gonna need a CPA.

This time of year reminds me that the club spends about $1000 on the end of the year banquet that only about one third of the members attend. That doesn’t seem “fair” to the other two thirds who do not to attend. Attendees should be paying that $1000. It’s only $25 each ($50 per couple) in addition to the $42 each ($84 per couple) for the meal.
I’m sure it would be a more enjoyable evening if attendees were assured that the club was “fair” in all important respects.

Come to think of it, what about the $800 in trophy money? The members who don’t participate in racing competitions are helping to foot the bill for all those who win prizes, something they don’t share in. Shouldn’t we charge the trophy winners, or even better, give everyone equal trophies whether or not they compete?

And who came up with the reduced membership dues for life-time members when, in fact, many of the current lifers still use the club more than most members? The board has at least moved from no dues to half dues, but really, isn’t it time to move to full dues? Those (we) people are down there all the time!

And in order to make the club really “fair” we need to tackle the greatest “unfairness” of all, the “unfairness” at the very core of the club. Is it “fair” that non-racers do duty that serves only the racers? Should they not have duty or should the racers pay a hefty fee to restore “fairness?”

If we do all that, then we will have a club that is “fair.” Or at least I think so. Maybe you can think of some other “unfairness” that also needs to be corrected.

2009 Commodore's Banquet

noreply@blogger.com (Annie) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 02:57:00 +0000

Hey folks. This year’s commodore’s awards banquette is going to be wicked fun!!! Why you may ask? It’s just the blah blah blah racing awards and one more poor shmuck bagged for doing something stupid that we’ve we all done.

Is the difference going to be Randy, Jim and Greg don't win everything…no, they did. Will it be that someone other than Diane will be thanked for keeping the club from going? No, she still dose. Could it be the awards them selves will be some spectacular trophies worthy of display in any ones living room…no most likely steak knives and wrongly spelled plaques. So you ask “ma-nish-na-ta –ha-ly-la-ha-ze” what? Why is this night different than all other nights…who knew? The answer my friends…ROCK & ROLL BABY!!!!!

Put on your dancing shoes cause we are burnin down the house November 14, 2009, the 60th anniversary of MYC with my band, we use to be called the stones but for legal reasons we don’t do that any more, will be hosting this years event.. We’ll be doing Van Morrison, the Beatles, The Stones, Hootie and the Blow Fish, Warren Zevon, Dylan, John Cougar, Eddie Money, Tom Petty, Cold Play, Eric Clapton…and many many more. In addition to the band there will be very special guest singers…who? YOU!! Better than Karaoke, you, my friends and Dave Too are welcome to come on up and sing with us. What fun!!!

So don’t sit home thinking I don’t belong there, I don’t race, I never win (I never win either it’s why I’m playing) this is your party!! Party ON GARTH!!!

Hope to see everyone...or there's a special extra charge for non attendance for members who's boats float above the water line...

Rich Hirsch

Agenda Notes

noreply@blogger.com (Gary) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 13:48:00 +0000

1. At the May 09 meeting there was a discussion concluding that the “MYC Policy For Matters Requiring Membership Approval” applies to all initiatives brought forward by the Board, including the annual budget. The agenda has three such items.

a. Budget
b. Proposed fees for leaving boats in winter storage space after sailing season starts
c. Proposed fees for winter storage for small boats

The information required by the policy is to be available to the members two weeks before the meeting. This allows us to discuss the matter on the blog and allows us all to be more prepared. It might help speed up what appears to be a busy meeting. I look forward to reviewing this information.

2. The clubhouse use fee was established without a membership vote and should be brought forward as a Board proposal following the proper procedures. Alternatively, it should be revoked.

3. The budget proposal should not include as income money from fees not yet or not properly approved by the membership.

4. The Participation Committee has materials that should be made available to members ahead of time.

5. The By-laws are very complex. If the By-laws Committee has a draft document or other presentation material, it would be very helpful to give members an opportunity to preview them.

6. If the Membership Committee has any presentation materials it might be helpful to publish that as well.

7. The Agenda includes the MYC website URL, but should also include the Blog URL. It’s the Blog where pre-meeting issue discussion is supposed to occur.

If Looks Count

noreply@blogger.com (Gary) — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 15:23:00 +0000

I have a fairly simple request.

Back in the day, we used to take a certain amount of pride in how the club looked in the winter after we had packed everything away and abandoned the place for six months. There was never much that could be done about the beach with stacked docks and barrels covering much of it, but the view from the street was something we could control and something we did worry about. The theory was that it was our responsibility as a good neighbor to leave the property looking as natural and undisturbed as possible. This aesthetic concern was a major factor in having a rule against winter storage of boats that were not placed on racks.

Over time, winter storage has become an accepted practice. It seems highly unlikely that we will ever revisit that decision, but we don’t have to completely throw out our good neighbor responsibilities and our sense of aesthetics. We can at least do our best to minimize the eyesore of carelessly stored boats, and surely we can do better than last year when the club looked like a low rent marina.

I suggest that no boats be stored in the inner circle of the driveway and that the view from the entrance to the clubhouse be unobstructed by boats of any kind (large, small, and rowing dinghies). There seems to be plenty of room in the southwest corner of the property – from the right of the bathrooms over to and a little past the hoist. Large boats stored there would be out of the line of sight and would be less of a problem for the spring work party. Lasers and Sunfish could be put on the empty spaces on the racks on the beach and to the right of the clubhouse. The old dinghies could be put on racks, the beach, or in a dumpster.

Maybe there is already a plan afoot that will improve how things look. If so, bravo! If not, could we make one? Currently there are five big boats, five small boats, and a pile of dinghies in the inner circle. With minimal effort, they could all be moved, and the club could look 100 % better.

Night Sailing on Massapoag

noreply@blogger.com (Curt) — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:16:00 +0000

If you have never sailed at night on Massapoag, let me give you some ideas on having a great safe time.

1) Plan for the events. What are you going to see when you are out there? Great sunset? Any constellations to view? Big Dipper? Planets? Moon?

2) Familiarizer yourself with the rock markers during the day and make a mental picture. There is plenty of room on the lake. You don't need to get close to the rocks.

3) Begin before dark. Turn the club lights on. Good for navigation coming back in. Rig your boat the same way every time. Main then jib. Each cleat wound the same direction. Use familiar knots you can untie in the dark. You don't want to have to think about knots. Secure all non-essential gear. You don't need to be tripping over silly stuff. Keep the deck neat. WEAR A LIFE JACKET.

4) Cast off and enjoy the sunset. There will be a lull in the wind between sunset and dark. Don't worry. The SW wind will come back and steady out for a great sail after dark.

5) Start looking for lights along shore as it gets darker. Use the lights for reference, not illuminating the lake. Your eyes will adjust as the sun sets. The Community Center lights stay on all night. Massapoag Ave is lit well. So are some of the neighbor's houses. All good references.

6) During that brief period when the wind takes a break, you can take a break and look for some of those celestial wonders. Look up! If the wind stays up, you can always sail into calm water and drop anchor. Oh, did I tell you to bring snacks? Break out the snacks.

7) The saddest part? Going in! Everything gets reversed. Remember the wind and which side of the dock you want to tie up to. Stay about 1 boat length away from the dock before turning in. Just like during the day, you'll slow down.

I know you will be smiling and going back for more.

We started sailing evenings because the weekend days were busy with the kids. It was our only quiet time. Don't forget your flashlight. I did a few times but if you do everything the same way every time, it gets easy without light. The flashlight does come in handy if other boats are on the lake at night or to serve snacks more easily.

Any questions or want to share experiences? Please post comments.

The Power of the Board

noreply@blogger.com (Gary) — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 12:47:00 +0000

Dear Board of Directors,

I am now serving on my second committee concerned with expanding voting participation at MYC. As you know, I think this issue is very important. But there is a bigger, more important issue than how we vote. It is what we vote on. In the recent past, the board has enacted several things on which I feel there should have been a vote, and there was no vote.

This raises issues concerning the powers of the board. I find myself in disagreement with the recent practice of exercising your power, so I will explain my understanding of the requirements of the By-laws and the spirit of the club, and you will hopefully explain yours.

As I read the By-laws, the board is given a lot of power, but that power is limited in two areas: establishment of membership fees and expenditures of a large sum of money.

In November 2008, a new membership policy was established without a vote, and included in that were new fees. Article IX, Section 1 of the By-laws states: “The annual dues for the various types of membership and the initiation fees for Provisional Members elected to voting of Special Junior Member status shall be determined by the Voting Members at any regular or special meeting.” Doesn’t this say that a vote is required when any membership dues change? Is there something else in the By-laws that suggests that a membership vote is not required?

In Article VI, Section 3 there is a dollar limitation to the board’s “spending authority,” above which a “majority vote of the membership is required.” I believe that limit is currently $1500. It seems clear that the By-laws intend to prevent the board from spending the members’ money without the members’ prior consent. Due to a variety of factors, considerably more than $1500 of non-approved money was spent on the new bathroom. Given the significant amount of time that passed from breaking ground to completion, including one or two business meetings, why was membership approval for overrun money never sought, and what safeguards are in place to prevent this from happening in the future?

The question of user fees is never specifically addressed, but I interpret the two cited By-laws statements to suggest an intent to have the membership, not the board, make the final determination as to what costs the members incur. This would then apply to all fees. I see no grounds in the By-laws for separating fees from dues, where one is up to the members and the other up to the board. Does the board disagree with this interpretation? If so, how and why?

Following my interpretation, establishment of a clubhouse use fee requires a vote of the membership. So does the small boat storage fee. Additionally, does the board have the authority to overturn a membership vote, as was done in the case of implementing the small boat storage fee which was voted down by the members at a prior business meeting? Why did it take a membership vote to institute the large boat storage fee, but not the small boat fee?

Does the board feel it has the power, if it chooses, to impose the new proposed membership fee structure where members with more than one boat are charged extra, or will that be subject to a vote?

If these actions of the board over the last year or so are indeed allowed by the By-laws, I have a fundamental misunderstanding of what that document says and means, and need several clarifications. If you agree that one or more of the above cases involved a misstep by the board, what is going to be done about it? I think we, the membership, should re-address each of these new fees, one at a time.

These are not rhetorical questions. I really want to hear the board’s view on these issues. They get to the heart of how the club is run and who makes decisions. In this current round of updating the Bylaws I think it is fundamental that we all share a common understanding of what the By-laws say, and of who is empowered to make which decisions.

I believe the organizational model that was intended, and the one that should be more clearly established in the new By-laws, should be that of a Cooperative, incorporated only to limit the personal liability of the members. We are not a Corporation in the business sense of having a need for delegated management. We need a Board of Directors to handle day to day operations, not to make all major decisions for us, and instead of us.

Laser Sailing – A Wild Weekend

noreply@blogger.com (Gary) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:44:00 +0000

In spite of no sailing at the club last weekend, members of the Laser fleet had a busy and exciting weekend.

Eric, Dave Ryan, and I sailed in the Laser New England Masters Regatta in Newport. Masters sailing in lasers is for those 35 years old and up. Each decade gets it’s own grouping, so 35-45 is a category, 45-55 is a category, 55 – 65, and 65+. Each successive category gets a 1 point per race handicap in scoring, but frequently in large regattas, everyone races together. The regatta in Newport had 49 boats.

This regatta is sponsored by the very strong Newport fleet and was attended by several national and world champions. The three of us MYC members had the “I don’t want to finish last” conversation, but we all acquitted ourselves well in a tough fleet. At the end of the day on Saturday, Eric was in 9th, Dave was 18th, and I was 25th (but I was black flagged in the first race and got 25 points more than my real finish.) Dave and I did not sail the pouring rain and big wind on Sunday, but Eric toughed it out to finish in 15th. Great job!

The highlight of the regatta was the third race in which Eric and I raced neck and neck with two world champions to finish 3rd and 4th just behind them. As I tell the story in A Flash of Brilliance on Apparent Wind, it was quite a thrill and may be the best finishes we ever get in a laser regatta of this size and status.

High School sailor, David Gilman, braved the Healy Regatta held on Sunday in the big wind and heavy rain in Jamestown, Rhode Island. 43 courageous high school kids competed in full rig and radial rig lasers in conditions most adults wouldn’t go out in. Is Discretion Really the Better Part of Valor? on Apparent Wind more fully describes the conditions. David and Eric deserve all the credit in the world for sailing last Sunday.

College sailor Matt Russell finally had a weekend off from his busy Tufts College Sailing Team schedule, but he is the first Sharon High sailor to make the sailing team at a big time, perennial top 20 college. SHS Sailing is very proud of him!