News:

This Forum is for the purpose of communication of cycling related issues. It is open to all with very few restrictions on content, but is moderated to some extent. Forum participants are expected to treat each other with dignity and respect.

Main Menu

SDCBC important information for us

Started by Paul Nevins, July 03, 2022, 06:30:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic
There's a proposal to change the bylaws to better serve the cycling needs of our county.

kcpurcell

Hi, I'm your NCCC club rep to the coalition. I go to boring meetings so you don't have to!

The proposed bylaws are actually contentious. The existing bylaws were adopted in 2019 after a difficult two year process and reflect a compromise between those whose main purpose is to attract new riders and those people who have been bicycling all along, like us club riders. New board members are either nominated by the current leadership and ratified at a membership meeting or are representatives of cycling clubs.

Since 2019 the board has expanded, through the leadership nomination process and recruiting new clubs, to diversify and on bring a wider variety of people. So now we have a big diverse board. Leadership is now proposing to reduce the board size by eliminating the club representative positions. I would lose my seat - NCCC would not have an automatic representative on the coalition board.

If I wanted to get back on the board I would have to approach the current leadership or a board member to nominate me to the member election. I can't just nominate myself. I have no idea if leadership would do so. They seem intent on reducing club influence at the moment.

As you might imagine, there is a minority on the board that opposes these new bylaws.

I would say that if passed the new bylaws will lead to a board that's less contentious, since the board will have control over who they bring on. Leadership says they will be "more effective". I'm not sure how you could call it a true coalition though. I'm also not sure if there would be a meaningful role for NCCC. There is a however good bit of grant money out there to increase ridership, and my guess is that the coalition staff would focus on working with governments to entice new riders with infrastructure like protected bike lanes.

If the bylaws don't pass then we will have a board with a certain amount of direct representation, through clubs reps, that leadership can't control. There will be more discussion of safety, design and accommodating recreational cyclists. There will be more discussion, full stop. The coalition would still work with governments to entice new riders, but there would also be pesky club reps pushing for regular bikes lanes and other safety issues that affect our day to day. Leadership and staff will have to synthesize different opinions about what's best. In short it will be the noisy discussion you might expect from a diverse coalition.

So please, VOTE at the July 27 webinar, whichever way you think best. The important thing is to register now, before the zoom seminar fills up. Here is the url:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_5_lr3QtGSaK2IKe1A2lhIA

Do it for me - I've sat through a bunch of meetings for the club. Do it for NCCC, for us. We need your vote. Thanks.

-- Ken Chin-Purcell


karlos

All - I'm going to be a little more blunt and simply urge you to register to vote ASAP - click here - and then simply vote NO. Your vote is super important and by registering now, you will be guaranteed a vote. Later, you may be locked out if the webinar reaches maximum capacity.

As your former NCCC rep and board member on the Coalition, I was deeply involved in the Bylaws restructuring which required 2 years of negotiation and compromise by both sides during 2017-2019. I want to share CycloVet and former Board Member Pierre Pfeffer's take on this current effort to flip the Bylaws once again. It will give you a little more insight into the history of bike clubs with SDCBC, their role in establishing the Coalition, and the Bylaws change just a couple years ago.

QuoteHi ...  I'd heard this was coming.  It is a terrible idea.

A little history. The SDCBC was started aa a group of clubs, similar to what the council of clubs is today.  As it grew, it was agreed that broadening it's membership made sense, and the original group of clubs agreed to this with the proviso that ex officio (club denoted board member) board members equaled the number of at large elected directors. This is how it was constituted when I joined, and got involved in the great "rewrite" of the bylaws.

After much debate and pressure from a small group of non-club board members complaining that the clubs had an "unfair" advantage and an outsized influence, the clubs agreed to striking the "1 club appointed director for every elected director."  provision.  All agreed that with that concession, all parties were satisfied and a new set of bylaws (improved in many respects over the older outdated document) was finalized, presented to the membership, voted upon and passed. The clubs did not oppose the new bylaws because they were satisfied they had preserved significant club influence (clubs determine "what is a club, and any club can appoint a director). 

Tension arose almost immediately.  Clubs are by and large made up of skilled riders who are comfortable in traffic, and who ride the entire county. Their perspective is different for the most part  from the "other" elected directors who never saw a bollard / concrete barrier they didn't like.  If it makes the average rider "feel" safer, then it's good and must be supported regardless if it is "actually" safer or even (as in many instances) it makes riding more difficult for more experienced riders.

What the Coalition has done well is open up an income stream by partnering with the City of San Diego and other cities in the county to secure grants. These grants are used for education (good use of the money) and advocacy (not always good use of the money.)  Clubs have objected to several of the "projects" officially supported by the Coalition. So now, the group that two years ago wanted to expand the board for the sake of "diversity" now wants to shrink it for the sake of "efficiency." Pure hypocrisy in my opinion. What they really want is a tight knit board free from the meddling of the clubs, I've been part of these debates while still on the board. Believe me it is ONLY the clubs that are looking out for club riders, and really for all riders. The others are looking to protect their income stream and have become, again in my opinion, a propaganda machine for the various governmental agencies as they push a not always sane or safe set of infrastructure projects.

The change in the bylaws that is being proposed is NOT coming from the clubs, it is coming from those who want the clubs' voices silenced.

My two cents. That plus 6 bucks will get you a gallon of gas.  😮

Pierre
Karl Rudnick. former SDCBC Board member and NCCC voice at the table

Thanks for the links and all the information.  I've registered.  The one thing I'm confused about is how/when do you get your "no" vote in, is it only possible to vote during the meeting on the 27th?  Thanks, Anthony

Although both Ken and Karl do have a point as to the representation of our club on the SDCBC the situation is not as simplistic as both sides are stating it. There's a number of considerations that should be addressed beyond the hard line stances taken. Unfortunately during my tenure on the board the curmudgeons who espoused Forester's discredited theories had complete control and so many of the best advocates for inclusion left to form the Bike SD. The coalition lost mothers and family advocates who fortunately were able to work with the local governments to get the changes implemented that now brings many thousands of children to bicycling unlike during the Forester years when we lost generations of riders due to the overwhelming impact of motor vehicles on all our streets. Those of us, yes I include myself, who are skilled at navigating the roads competing with cars and trucks compromise less than a fraction of 1 percentages  of the general population. We really need to acknowledge that working to provide inviting infrastructure for families to ride bikes is critical to bring new riders to our clubs and provide the numbers of people who do ride to the point where most of the motor vehicles we encounter are driven by persons who also ride a bike albeit not as aggressively. Just as car and motorcycle clubs don't have the right to stage weekend races on public roads we also should be cognizant that our club rides are often 'peletons' thus inappropriate for much of the infrastructure serving 99% of the population. With the huge influx of e-bikes now on the roads the Coalition has to focus on getting a whole new strategy in place to restructure our streets for this new reality. As clubs our experience during the past decades is valuable input to design for the future but not the only worthwhile one. As for the proposed bylaws not having read them I can't tell which option is better but I do sense that neither option is what we should have to best serve the interest of all those riding bikes. Hopefully enough board members will put aside their dogmatic stances and work on building the organization we need for providing the community resources that will change overall consciousness from 'I'll just jump in the car' for a short errand to 'I'll take the bike'. This is especially critical for children going to schools because that's where our new members are born.
https://bikesd.org/advocacy/1940-san-diego-countys-first-bicycle-advocacy-group-is-established/

Just finished watching today's tour stage, lots of cobbles! My kinda ride yep I've gone gravel, more challenging more freedom less vehicles less conflict steeper climbs more spectacular scenery much less boring no traffic nor traffic signals. Of course I'm old and slow compared to the other riders so off the back of the big grouppo pretty soon but hey we can power all out for miles only sporadically jumping on and off pavement on many routes. Think you're tough think you're skilled think again. Rewarding oh yeah I really feel that I've earned a beer often 2.
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0QGDdyTvGXzDUw
https://www.icloud.com/sharedalbum/#B0Q5fk75vHmyEN

kcpurcell

Anthony - The vote is during the meeting on the 27th. Possibly by raising your zoom hand.

Paul - All good points you make. If it was me the most important bylaw change would be hard term limits - the Coalition needs new faces on the board all around. The proposed bylaws have soft term limits - exceptions can easily be made. There are currently no term limits, and some board members have been on there for a looooong time.

A lot of the stances on the board seem overly hardened. I've tried to find middle ground, for example with the "Designing Cycletracks for Success" document that featured a lot of my wordsmithing. My essential point there was to say Cycletracks are useful and appealing to new riders, but there's such a thing a a poorly designed one. And that's my honest stance. I doubt that Cycletracks are a silver bullet, but they also aren't horrible. It's a type of bike lane.

My main issue with the proposed bylaws is that it removes the representative aspect of the coalition. If they pass the Coalition will be a "Group of people who agree with current leadership", because leadership will control who gets on the board. Lots of non profits are structured like that, it's allowed. But it's different than representing all riders and synthesizing a position based on membership. The Coalition used to be grassroots, bottom up. This would finalize the process of making it top down.

Beyond the current issues at hand, it just seems a shame to me that representative aspect of the Coalition might be coming to an end.

— Ken

Yeah Ken my biggest disappointment with the board was how a group of curmudgeons had entrenched themselves as members in perpetuity. They weren't all actually club representatives in fact most of them weren't club members and some were the only member of their 'club'! The coalition has made great strides in bettering our cycling environment over the past few years hopefully this will eventually play out to purge the board of the 'fake clubs' and board members for life. Andy has juggled this issue with great finesse for too long he does need to have a board that can comprehend the changing cycling demographics and understand the need for a new flexible approach to develop future community planning.

karlos

Paul - A good thing about the current Coalition, which took place after you left was a Bylaws change back in ~2012 that created the Council of Clubs. The current version of the CoC has eliminated the "one man club" and Board member for perpetuity thankfully. There are now specific criteria for a "club" - need bylaws, website, submit a roster to SDCBC for communications, etc. I agree with you on that. The clubs that now participate in the CoC are true clubs in my mind and what you observed in the past is thankfully gone. And when a club joins the CoC after an approval vote by CoC reps they can decide if they want a Board seat. Not all do, because there are specific obligations that the club rep must meet all the requirements of elected Board members. Nothing is perfect, but shrinking the Board down to essentially eliminate multiple club voices at the table makes this less of a "coalition" as Ken explains well. There are some other details if you read the Bylaws up for vote that a SDCBC member who is a parliamentarian says are conflicting. Besides shrinking club representation to the CoC chair only, the Board will be self-selecting with no member input (~8,000 who now count as members will have no say). Also, the new Board can vote to add ex-officio (non-elected) Board members representing "approved" organizations. Everyone has a right to approve these Bylaws, but please read them carefully and understand that words matter. But the biggest thing in my mind is that nothing has been held back because of the recently (2019) approved Bylaws. SDCBC continues to function: gets funding, great education programs, advocates across the County. The only thing that is dysfunctional at the moment is leadership spending time and resources the past 8 months creating division with an unnecessary (imo) Bylaws update where we thought that division was softened back in 2019.

Karlos it saddens me to hear that after all the past hard work getting the SDCBC to a more transparent and democratic state that this has come to pass. The SCAAA did a similar thing years ago when their board members claimed that holding elections was financially burdensome and got the membership to vote them in for life with the power to appoint their successors. This effectively changed the AAA from a membership organization to a private insurance company overnight! I quit. What's most troubling to me is that there's no series of informational emails clearly addressing the issue with a complete disclosure of the proposed changes along with the current bylaws so that we can critically analyze the information to made an informed decision on how to vote. The board is and should be both responsible to the membership and be directing the executive and staff, I'd like to see far more information about the coalition's activities and goals on their website and that information would be helpful linked on our website (all clubs sites) too. Given how cycling is making a resurgence with students and young adults our clubs would be well advised to become more active in keeping our members updated on the progress our cities and county are making to improve infrastructure and accessibility for cyclists. Not all the changes are optimized for group rides so we do need to be considerate of the other needs and work to coexist on the roads with less aggressive riders. Personally my goal is to take space back from motor vehicles to expand space for bikes and pedestrians.

karlos

Paul - You must have missed the link to the actual Bylaws in both of the SDCBC communications. It clearly is marked up to show the changes. Please read them and not rely on the rhetoric in the email that was sent. Most people just don't take the time to read. It clearly states that a primary objective is to create a "self-selecting" Board. True diversity with respect to so many categories goes out the window with 15 Board members figuring out who the next 15 are. And there is a provision, despite the proposed term limits, that a Board member (with majority Board vote) can go beyond their term limit if they are "working on something important."