Sail Tags
Jaren Leet introduced this proposal by stating that the National rule had already been changed to incorporate sail tags, so the only proposal for discussion was the proposed change to the Fleet One Articles. After a short discussion, it was moved and seconded that the proposal be approved. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Membership and Eligibility
David Owen introduced this proposal, described the proposed changes and the differences between the National and Fleet One Articles proposals. After a short discussion, the consensus was that although the proposed National rule was not perfect, it moves the National rules in the right direction. A motion to approve the National proposal was seconded and approved unanimously by voice vote.

The proposal to change the Fleet One Articles was discussed at length. One objection to the proposal was that it precludes non-Group 1 fractional owners from driving, as pointed out by one owner whose son is a Group 2 fractional owner. Another objection was lack of confidence in the US Sailing eligibility determinations. In an effort to remedy these problems, Chuck Eaton proposed an amendment to delete the words "…100% of a Yacht or (b) is a Group 1 Competitor (as defined by US Sailing Competitor Eligibility Appendix) with" in paragraph 3.3. The proposed amendment was defeated by a show of hands with 12 ayes and 14 nays. Discussion of the proposal itself resumed with the primary objection being that the current Articles are working fine and that changes are not needed. Chuck Eaton pointed out that, in fact, the current Articles have a couple problems, including the lack of requirement that owners be members of Fleet One to sail in Fleet One races. Nevertheless, a motion to approve the Articles proposal was defeated by a show of hands with 7 ayes and 20 nays.

Standard Equipment
Pat Benedict introduced this proposal by describing the differences between the National and Fleet One Articles rules and the nature of "standard equipment". After a very short discussion, both the National and Articles proposals were approved unanimously by voice vote.

Mainsheet Arrangement
Pat Benedict introduced this proposal by describing the differences between the National and Fleet One Articles rules and the resultant difference between the wording of the National and Articles proposals. After a very short discussion, both the National and Articles proposals were approved unanimously by voice vote.

Spinnaker Size
Danny Shea introduced this proposal by describing the current situation in other fleets and other spinnaker sizes used, especially in lighter wind areas, and by describing the difference between the National and Articles proposals. In discussion, several members pointed out that in a one-design class the size of the spinnaker does not matter as long as all are the same, that using the larger spinnaker would improve boat speed only very slightly, and that the proposed one-89 and one-77 arrangement was effectively the same as carrying only one spinnaker. Also mentioned was the requirement for Fleet One members to purchase larger spinnakers if sailing in National-rules regattas if the National proposal is adopted. Motions to approve both the National and Articles proposals failed by a show of hands with identical votes of 2 ayes and 23 nays.

Sail Purchase Restrictions
Chuck Eaton introduced this proposal by comparing the current Fleet One Articles to the proposed National rule, explaining the Fleet One ExCom's reasoning in proposing a less liberal change for the Articles, and explaining that the proposal originated because fleets around the country were seeing substantial performance differences between new and two-year old Dacron mains, and these performance differences detract from the one-design nature of the class. After short discussion, a motion to approve the National proposal was defeated by a show of hands with 3 ayes and 23 nays.

After brief discussion of the proposed Fleet One Articles change, the proposal was tabled pending discussion of the Kevlar issue. Chuck Eaton introduced that proposal by describing the relative cost and durability of Kevlar and Dacron and suggested that Kevlar might be a better solution to the performance difference problem than the proposal to remove the two-year mainsail purchase restriction, and that even if Kevlar is approved there would have to be a considerable lead time so removal of the two-year purchase restriction for Dacron mainsails would be a good interim solution. Considerable discussion ensued. One owner expressed concern about whether there actually are performance differences between new and two-year old mainsails, stating that his Quantum sails are just fine after two years. Another owner expressed support for the proposal stating that there is no question that due to the stretchiness of Dacron, there are performance differences between new and two year old sails, that a Kevlar mainsail will retain its shape far better than Dacron and that despite higher initial cost, in the long run Kevlar would be more cost effective than Dacron. A question arose about the "7 oz" wording of the proposal and Chuck Eaton offered an amendment to remove the weight restriction until the appropriate wording could be determined after consulting with sailmakers. After some additional discussion, the amendment was defeated by hand count with 8 ayes and 18 nays. A motion to approve the Kevlar proposal then failed by hand count with 7 ayes and 20 nays. Discussion returned to the tabled proposal with several members questioning the change to calendar year instead of anniversary date and tying sails to yachts instead of owners. Chuck Eaton proposed an amendment which deleted both the calendar year feature and the tying of sails to yachts. After very little additional discussion, the amendment was defeated by hand count with 3 ayes and 23 nays. A motion to approve the proposal was then defeated by hand count with 4 ayes and 22 nays.

Weigh-ins
Jaren Leet introduced this proposal by explaining the proposal's effect of removing the prospect of repeat weigh-ins during a regatta. Pat Benedict proposed an amendment such that the proposal would read "Insert a sentence in paragraph 11.1…", which was approved unanimously be voice vote. After very little additional discussion, a motion to approve the proposal for both National rules and the Articles was approved by identical hand counts of 18 ayes and 2 nays.

Boat Weight
Jaren Leet introduced this non-voting proposal by describing the lack of clear performance differences and lack of comprehensive, statistically valid boat weight data. He also described the test at KWRW, but indicated that no data or conclusions have been produced from that test. One owner indicated that weight differences are significant, that performance differences result and that resale value of boats may be affected. He offered no specific solution, but stated that a weight equalization program is required. Some discussion followed, including mention of the successes and failures of similar programs in other fleets and the difficulty of enforcing any weight equalization program. Several owners volunteered to put floatation marks on their boats at their next haul-out, with marks located per instructions from Fleet Measurer Don Trask.

Conclusion

Jaren Leet adjourned the meeting at 2113 hours.

After adjournment, Jaren Leet reminded members about the dock party at the Spring One Design and the StFYC St. Patrick's Day party later that evening and urged all to attend. He also asked members interested in the Tinsley Island race/cruise in mid-August to indicate their interest by signing a sheet at the front table or e-mailing Jaren.

Respectfully submitted,