Asking for Interpretation - rigging

[Robert Grubisa]

For info: New asking for interpretation is posted on IOM ICA website.

[Robert Grubisa]

Join IRSA – IOM ICA Subcommittee has issued Interpretation 2011-IOM-2 on IOM Class Rules regarding rigging asked by Graham Bantock, commercial builder. See IOM ICA website.

[Bruce Andersen]

Robert

I noticed that you sat on the joint committee on this technical interpretation.

Inasmuch as you are commercially associated (as a boat builder) with GB (who originated the request), don't you think it's a conflict of interest to be part of the process?

I recall this issue arose during the last elections - didn't you state that you would recuse yourself from situations that involve possible conflicts of interest such as this?

[Robert Grubisa]

Hi Bruce

1) I have declared that since mid-2005 I am building IOM boats Topiko and Pikanto (from the year of 2008) in Croatia under the SAILSetc license. So, I am paying a royalty fee for each moulded hull to SAILSetc. Topiko and Pikanto boats were made for CRO and foreign owners in my spare time, or they are currently under construction.

2) I am not SAILSetc employee, subcontractor or anything similar so there is no conflict of interest. I stated that I will inform IOM ICA in case of any change of my commercial interest. So far, there is no change.

3) Do you have any problems with interpretation issued by Join IRSA-IOM ICA Sub-Committee?

[Bruce Andersen]

Hi Robert

Declaring financial ties is always good - keeps everything above board.

Being part of a committee making decisions that may affect the finances and/or business plans of a company you depend upon for part of your livelihood is never good - raises doubts about the decision process.

In a professionally run organization, all parts of its workings must be beyond reproach and transparent to the general membership. While I applaud your declaration of your affiliation with SailsEtc, I am disappointed that you don't see the conflict.

[RoyL]

The issue here is not whether a rules interpretation is right or wrong. It is who should be allowed to decide the question.

In just a quick check of various ISAF rules is it very clear that it is required that the integrity of all officials must be beyond reproach (see for example the ISAF rules on measurers) and that any financial interest and even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be avoided. Manufacturing boats under a license from Graham Bantock and making regular royalty payments to Graham Bantock, at minimum, clearly raises issues concerning the impartiality of anyone ruling on a question raised by Mr. Bantock.

I also do not believe that the decision of whether an official has a disqualifying conflict of interest is a matter to be solely determined by the possibly conflicted official. At the very least, Robert Grubisa should have asked for a ruling from ISAF or IRSA on this issue.

And as a practical matter, given there are other members of the IOMICA technical committee who have no financial or other relationship with Graham Bantock, I do not understand why these questions weren't turned over to someone else.

[Barry Fox CAN262]

Roy, you are a member of the Permanent Committee of the organization that DID make the ruling and issue the final interpretation. Your fellow Committee member "signed" the final form and my bet is that a standard form is used for these interpretations and that Robert's name is included by default. But, the point here is that your organization delivered the interpretation, not the ICA.

Formulating a draft of the response was done by the ICA TSC and, whether you care to believe it or not, it was agreed upon by the entire TSC before it was forwarded to IRSA to deal with. As everyone knows, it is completely IRSA's authority to issue these interpretations. Your organization, IRSA, chose to include Robert's name on the final report, not the ICA. All we are doing is reporting your (IRSA's) findings.

While it is very important to remove conflicts of interest, that process can be carried to an extreme. I use a lot of SalsEtc. products on my boats. I even have had a few email conversations directly with Graham. Because I like the products and have gained quite a bit of knowledge from Graham through those emails I guess I couldn't be involved in any decision either. Carried to an extreme that would remove almost everyone with an IOM from being able to participate.

Good, constructive criticism is always a good thing. But I would categorize the majority of the input that you have given over the last couple of years as fully destructive at every opportunity. This kind of garbage does nothing to build the class up.

Maybe you ought to raise the issue with your IRSA Tech compatriot first and find out why Robert was included in the final interpretation. This is much more of an IRSA issue than an ICA one. By the way, I believe your (IRSA's) Tech Committee Chair does a fine job and I have nothing negative to contribute at all.

The ICA has only one voice among the three named members. That means that both of the "neutral" members likely voted in favor of the result.

[RoyL]

Barry---I'm truly sorry you don't respect my opinions. I actually believe the issues I am raising and the questions I pose are valid and important. More important, I have tried to be respectful in my postings. I ask that you read all of my posts over the last ten years and I challenge you to find any instance (no matter how provoked even by the present IOMICA Chairman-lol) where I characterized any statement I disagreed with as "garbage". (Well maybe I did say something when Lester Gilbert called me some bad names lol). On a personal note, let me say that your post was plain and simple, hurtful and cruel.

On the issue at hand I suggest you read the ISAF rules and regulations regarding integrity and conflict of interest. ISAF is very strong in requiring the avoidance of even the "appearance" of a conflict of interest and particularly important in not having any "financial interest". Why this is serious and important has been borne out by IOMICA's own history--in the past, some technical rulings of IOMICA were questioned worldwide because it was assumed (whether true or not) that there was an improper relationship between the officers of IOMICA and certain suppliers. Oh, and there is a vast difference from selling a company's products and simply buying them.

Finally, I think that your suggestion that this issue be taken up by IRSA is a good one--I will bring it to that organization's attention and ask that it set out rules and regulations on conflicts of interest in r/c sailing and specifically on the question of whether Robert Grubisa should rule on any questions posed by Sails etc.

[Barry Fox CAN262]

I guess you need to sit in my chair as I feel that many of your previous posts (not related to this particular matter) were just meant to stir things up. After a while I get tired of the stirring and perhaps this was the (or one of the) pinnacles. Maybe garbage was a bit harsh but the intent, in my mind, was correct. It appears, time and again, that my opinion is of no value to you but on the other hand your opinion is almost certainly factual and the only correct one. I would tend to disagree, as you may have guessed.

I agree that there should be no belief that there is conflict in action. From what I know, Robert (in conjunction with his full TSC) submitted the question(s) to Val and proposed some findings. Val, in her capacity as Chair of the Technical Committee of IRSA then had full and absolute control of the final wording and findings. My bet is that she has a template for such things and that it contains, by default, the names of her committee. But she may have consulted Robert to some extent and so maybe that is why his name is on the report. Whatever the case, I am of the opinion that Val does a fine job of her part of the business.

The main point is that all that was posted was the final, official wording from IRSA. Robert never said or intimated that this was his finding. He just presented it as having been received by IRSA.

I should point out that posting is mine and mine alone and in no way is meant to be the official word of the ICA. If there is any belief that is not the case then I guess you had better propose that I be relieved of my duties.

If being a member of the Exec somehow limits my opinion then I would say that is an improper expectation.

On the other hand, it is likely that a discussion about the involvement of anyone with even a loose association to the commercial side of the hobby and their eligibility to hold office at any level is a good thing to do.

Other than the "garbage" part I didn't think that I had been too offensive. I feel that I was fairly factual. But if not, I am willing to accept the consequences.

I'm going sailing.

[Barry Fox CAN262]

The previous posting will be my last one until November. Being on teh older side of things I can't always remember to post that one post or another is my opinion or one that represents the views of the ICA Exec.

From this point forward my postings will only be related to passing on official notifications. Until November.

[RoyL]

Barry: The issue here is not about what IRSA did or the final decision issued. The issue is whether it was proper for someone with an admitted financial interest to be involved in the process of deciding a question asked by the person he pays regular royalties to. My reading of the governing documents in this mater from ISAF seems to indicate that the mere appearance of a possible conflict of interest (and particularly a financial arrangement) should disqualify an official from participation in the process from the beginning. I am open to being shown that this is not the case. Please also be aware that the purpose of these rules seem to be to protect the overall integrity of the organization and its rulings and are not an attack on an individual or their integrity.

On a personal note, I assume from your last post that you stand by your prior comments. I am again extremely disappointed that you essentially reaffirmed your hurtful statements. And yes, coming from a current official of IOMICA, they hurt even more.

[Larry Brockway]

'While it is very important to remove conflicts of interest'

I am sure we all agree on this quote.

Lets hope this does not happen in the IOMICA choice of wildcard entries to the well oversubscribed 2011 Worlds.

[Olivier Cohen]

Lets hope this does not happen in the IOMICA choice of wildcard entries to the well oversubscribed 2011 Worlds.

Anything more precise ?

[Larry Brockway]

' anything more precise '

' conflicts of interest '

How clearer does a member of the exec of IOMICA need a message to be ?

Get it sorted........BEFORE