Proposed Constitutional will change Proposed Chang
Dear Fellow Association Members,
The proposed content change to the FSSA Constitution Article II should be examined with significant concern. It is, and has been the diligent intent of the current leadership of our Assoc to establish “An Investment Fund to be utilized for outreach within the sailing community.” This intention has been a topic of consideration at the level of the Board of Governors for some time. I believe that now is the time that the general membership be made aware of this.
It is my opinion that the purpose of the FSSA is clearly stated in Article II of the Constitution and any modification to Article II will change the Association at a fundamental level. Furthermore, the Statement about the 503.c.3 is a fabrication for the purpose of pushing thru the proposed change. You are being lied to.
So I ask for all of you to consider very carefully:
Should it be that the purpose of the FSSA will be to manage revenue in excess of its own operation expenses for the purpose of involvement in “Certain Charitable and Educational Projects”?
In my opinion, No. FSSA is for the purpose of maintaining the stated parameters of Article II. Please read it as currently worded. This proposed change will turn the FSSA into a forum for social experimentation and over time will bankrupt the Association.
Furthermore, Tom Lawton is being dismissed from the proposed Nominated Slate of Officers as First Vice President due to his long standing objection to the proposed “Play Money Fund”. Tom’s dedication to the class is second to none and he is the at the core of the next generation of FSSA leaders. Or said more directly, he is young and understands the purpose of the FSSA. Anyone who knows Tom and his involvement in the class will quickly conclude the unfounded nature of his dismissal. Stated as; “We the Nominating Committee here by agree that Tom Lawton does not have the time to devote to the Association due to other outside personal commitments.” Over the last 13 years Tom has been Fleet Captain of two different fleets, Carolina District Governor, Secretary / Treasurer and Second VP.
I am sticking my neck out here. And I am going to piss off a lot of people. But I believe the facts stated above to be true and correct. And, that it is very import to me and to all of you that the FSSA remain pure to its established purpose. And, that the actions of the decision makers currently in power are going to radically modify the stated purpose of the FSSA.
These will pass by Proxy vote. Both of these hidden agenda changes must be over turned in the interest of the longevity of the Association.
Thank you for you Consideration,
David Neff
FS 5609
FSSA Member 30 years
fs5138
Mon, 07/13/2009 - 06:43
Permalink
1.
1. Would you oppose the trust if it were funded through donations and not fees? Do other One Class organizations have similar trusts?
2. Personnel matters are always difficult to discuss in public forums. Perhaps Tom should discuss this with the nominating committee privately.
3. Using perjorative phrases like "Play Money Fund" and "You are being lied to" are not unhelpful. Your presupposition substitutes your judgement for that of others. Do you have any information about the structure of the prosposed fund?
Robert Vance
Commodore
Deep Creek Yacht Club, Inc.
fs5609
Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:38
Permalink
I agree with Robert vance, It is in poor form to use such wordi
I agree with Robert vance,
It is in poor form to use such wording. And distracting. There is information available about the Flying Scot Foundation under the FSSA. But at this point it apears that it is upon request. The proposed change to the constitution will allow for the insertion of this already exisitng entity, The Flying Scot Foundation. The process seems reverse.
I want discussion to result. And I want intentions to be made clear and public.
Who out there has heard of the The Flying Scot Foundation?
fs5609
Mon, 07/13/2009 - 07:40
Permalink
I just went to www.
I just went to www.irs.gov and this is a direct cut and paste from
http://www.irs.gov/publications/p557/ch03.html#d0e4563
"There are two types of amateur athletic organizations that can qualify for tax-exempt status. The first type is an organization that fosters national or international amateur sports competition but only if none of its activities involve providing athletic facilities or equipment. The second type is aQualified amateur sports organization (discussed below). The difference is that a qualified amateur sports organization may provide athletic facilities and equipment.
Donations to either amateur athletic organization are deductible as charitable contributions on the donor's federal income tax return. However, no deduction is allowed if there is a direct personal benefit to the donor or any other person other than the organization."
fs5609
Mon, 07/13/2009 - 20:14
Permalink
FSSA is already established as a non profit by definition of the
FSSA is already established as a non profit by definition of the tax code. A change to Article II is not necessary and is not consistent with the original intent of the FSSA Constitution. I believe that it should be written into the constitution that 'Article II - Object' shall be exempt from edit by any means.
Claus
Wed, 07/15/2009 - 07:22
Permalink
Scots-N-Water Forum, blogs, twitter, youtube, etc .
Scots-N-Water
Forum, blogs, twitter, youtube, etc ... is all free and won't promote people to get a membership. The printed color magazine is something that makes FSSA membership special. It's something you get, looks pretty, that you can read on the go (or on the loo),... I always look forward to the next edition. As to the content it's up to us. We all can contribute and see our story being published in a nice shiny magazine (pending on editor's approval). Without the Scots 'n Water magazine the only real benefit for me is that I can part take in some regattas, which is a big one for me. But if I were exclusively day sailing or living a bit further west the FSSA membership really doesn't have anything besides the magazine to offer. And as a non-racer I would totally disconnect with the association.
Of course it may be that there aren't many people like that. I don't have the detailed business view of FSSA so I'm not in the best position to give advice. I only can tell my views as a fringe member.
Claus FS5074 Ames, IA
Claus
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 08:28
Permalink
quote:[i]Originally posted by jfluard[/i] "I do not support giv
quote:[i]Originally posted by jfluard[/i]
"I do not support giving the current FSSA officers our fleet's proxy."
You fleet does not have to give proxy to somebody (the proxy does not need to be an FSSA officer), the fleet has also the option of sending a delegate to the annual meeting to vote on behalf of the fleet or to fill out the ballot and mail it.
Claus FS5074 Ames, IA
Claus
Mon, 07/20/2009 - 08:38
Permalink
Article IX.
Article IX.8 Change
Why is the phrase about sanctioned junior events being rephrased instead of being dropped? The Article IX.8 deals with membership and not with the junior championship. For that we have Article B-X.5 which already deals with the age restriction.
The proposal of Article IX.8 fixes the age discrepancy between it and article B-X.5 but it still has a discrepancy whether or not a Junior Championship participant may own the boat. Article IX.8 implies such a restriction while Article B-X.5 does not restrict by boat ownership.
Claus FS5074 Ames, IA