Fwd: [sfbike] Pros and Cons of bylaw vote

[John Murphy]

 

 

 

----- Original message -----

From: Jeremy Pollock <pollock...@gmail.com>

To: sfbike <sfb...@lists.riseup.net>

Subject: [sfbike] Pros and Cons of bylaw vote

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:04 -0700

 

The Bike Coalition has posted two pro and two con arguments for the proposed bylaw changes to eliminate member elections of the Board of Directors:

http://www.sfbike.org/news/bylaws-update-arguments-for-both-sides/

Leah Shahum and Dave Snyder in favor, and Mark Eliot and myself opposed.

 

I consider Leah and Dave friends, and I hope we continue to be after the dust settles on this. I have huge respect for everything they've done for biking in the City. While I disagree with them on this, I respect their opinions. But I just can't respect the flawed process for this vote.

 

This would have been a great way to start the debate on the biggest change to the Bike Coalition in decades. But this is day 12 of the 15-day window for voting! There is still no redline version of the bylaw changes to easily see what is changing. The voting webpage still contains a misleading description of the change that makes no reference to the elimination of member elections.

 

SaveSFBike asked the SFBC to fix these issues and to inform members that they can recast their vote if they change their mind after seeing both sides of the issue. They refused all of these requests.

 

I would love to take a step back and work on an inclusive process to look at how we can both protect member privacy and preserve democratic elections. The only way I see to prevent this from causing a damaging rift in the bike community is to cancel this vote and start over now that so many of us are paying attention to this big decision. 

 

Best,

Jeremy

 

--

To unsubscribe:

mailto:sy...@lists.riseup.net?subject=unsubscribe%20sfbike

or mailto:sfbike-un...@lists.riseup.net

 

To change your settings (e.g., Digest or NoMail when on vacation):

http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/sfbike

[David Goldsmith]

Was there even notification about the start of a voting period? I don't remember ever receiving anything from SFBC about it.

David

--
-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Peter Colijn]

Really? I got a bunch of stuff from them about it, some in their regular "news" updates and at least one separate one, I think.

[John Murphy]

Tube Times, email, website. Which pretty much means that most of the SFBC has no clue.

 

Make sure you vote. And if this annoys you, there is an SFBC board meeting tonight, and a board open house tomorrow :)

 

J

[David Goldsmith]

Somehow I have seem to have fallen off the SFBC e-mail list without my even realizing it. Their last e-mail in my Trash is from Noah and is dated 4/1. I did not unsubscribe.

Perhaps I'm not longer a member, although I have not received a renewal notice this year. Maybe Chris tossed it, hoping for "one less bicycle thing."

I still get the (printed newsletter), got one last month.

So I get more SFBC communications through the SF2G list than I do from the organization itself. Yay, SF2G!

[ammon]

SFBC called me last Tuesday night and left a 43-second personalized message reminding me to vote by this friday by visiting sfbike.org.

On Tuesday, July 28, 2015 at 1:23:37 PM UTC-7, murphstahoe wrote:

Tube Times, email, website. Which pretty much means that most of the SFBC has no clue.

 

Make sure you vote. And if this annoys you, there is an SFBC board meeting tonight, and a board open house tomorrow :)

 

J

 

 

On Tue, Jul 28, 2015, at 01:12 PM, David Goldsmith wrote:

Was there even notification about the start of a voting period? I don't remember ever receiving anything from SFBC about it.

 

David

 

On 7/28/15 12:04 PM, John Murphy wrote:

 

 

 

----- Original message -----

From: Jeremy Pollock <pollock...@gmail.com>

To: sfbike <sfb...@lists.riseup.net>

Subject: [sfbike] Pros and Cons of bylaw vote

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2015 11:57:04 -0700

 

The Bike Coalition has posted two pro and two con arguments for the proposed bylaw changes to eliminate member elections of the Board of Directors:

http://www.sfbike.org/news/bylaws-update-arguments-for-both-sides/

Leah Shahum and Dave Snyder in favor, and Mark Eliot and myself opposed.

 

I consider Leah and Dave friends, and I hope we continue to be after the dust settles on this. I have huge respect for everything they've done for biking in the City. While I disagree with them on this, I respect their opinions. But I just can't respect the flawed process for this vote.

 

This would have been a great way to start the debate on the biggest change to the Bike Coalition in decades. But this is day 12 of the 15-day window for voting! There is still no redline version of the bylaw changes to easily see what is changing. The voting webpage still contains a misleading description of the change that makes no reference to the elimination of member elections.

 

SaveSFBike asked the SFBC to fix these issues and to inform members that they can recast their vote if they change their mind after seeing both sides of the issue. They refused all of these requests.

 

I would love to take a step back and work on an inclusive process to look at how we can both protect member privacy and preserve democratic elections. The only way I see to prevent this from causing a damaging rift in the bike community is to cancel this vote and start over now that so many of us are paying attention to this big decision. 

 

Best,

Jeremy

 

--

To unsubscribe:

mailto...@lists.riseup.net?subject=unsubscribe%20sfbike

or mailto:sfbik...@lists.riseup.net

 

To change your settings (e.g., Digest or NoMail when on vacation):

http://lists.riseup.net/www/info/sfbike

--

-- follow: http://twitter.com/sf2g | terms: http://sf2g.com/terms.html | bike prep: http://sf2g.com/bike-prep.html | unsub: http://groups.google.com/group/sf2g

---

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SF2G" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sf2g+uns...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Ted Ketai]

BTW here is the link to vote, which they've made pretty hard to find: http://www.sfbike.org/bylawvote/

[Beckett Madden-Woods]

That's so weird. I haven't received a single email from SFBC about this vote. :(

[Scott Crosby]

The email they sent today about the Golden Wheel awards has a big section about the bylaw vote, btw.

[Chris Ryan]

Got nothing from them today...maybe it's being sent in batches, though...

[djconnel]

I took Andy Thornley's advice on the sfbike mailing list and voted no on the basis that the elimination of member voting is being misrepresented as a protection of privacy.  That's a terribly slippery argument.

It's not just the thing you vote for, it's to some degree the manner in which it's being sold.

[Scott Crosby]

Dan, I agree the privacy thing is kind of a red herring, but otherwise it's a tempest in a teapot. everyone please take a minute to vote either way, it's important to show that people care.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 6:04 AM, djconnel <djco...@gmail.com> wrote:

I took Andy Thornley's advice on the sfbike mailing list and voted no on the basis that the elimination of member voting is being misrepresented as a protection of privacy.  That's a terribly slippery argument.

It's not just the thing you vote for, it's to some degree the manner in which it's being sold.

[Ben Blizard]

As the stickers say, "I voted today."

Grumble grumble honest transparent advocacy vs effective advocacy?
Is that really the right way to frame the choice? Can't we have both?

--
Ben Blizard
Voice: (650) 450-0037

[nickie]

I was suspicious of the SFBC vote to transform to a non-membership organization from the first email I got claiming that privacy was the reason.  The issue of privacy seems like a complete red herring to me.  It is stunning that the leadership (Board, ED, former ED) would try to push this through in short order without proper debate.  Unlike Leah's focus on privacy Dave Snyder raises more pertinent questions in his comments online, basically saying that the organization needs to be more nimble.  But if that is the reason then there should be debate - and that has not been built into the process.

I faced the issue of whether or not to form a membership organization in the early 1990s when I helped to found an international NGO called the Forest Stewardship Council.  (You can buy FSC-certified forest products throughout the world now and many forests have been certified.)  As a member of the founding board we faced the question of whether we should have a voting membership.  A consultant gave us a presentation arguing that it would be hard for us to get work done with such a messy (democratic) system, and we initially proposed non-membership.  When we shared our proposal we got quite an outcry!  But we listened, and I am completely convinced that even though membership voting can be messy at times - and one does need to find the fine line to remaining nimble - that the benefits of an engaged membership far outweigh the ability to hire people that would not likely win a vote (a la Dave Snyder).  The organization will gain much more by keeping their finger on the pulse of their members, than they lose by having to manage elections and deal with input they didn't want to hear.  As I said, I think the privacy issue is bogus.

I have voted NO and hope others do also.  I'm sorry I can't attend the SFBC by-law meeting tonight, but I hope that there is a huge turnout and that the Board stops the election.

Nickie

[John Murphy]

It's a total red herring.

 

What this is about is Ed Hasbrouck ran for the board, a few engaged random members knew him and were interested in seeing him win, but the current board absolutely did not want him on the board. He wasn't a fit with the current makeup of the board - he's never going to rock out to deep house on the deep trike.  He shows up at board meetings and makes curmudgeonly comments about some bike issue du jour. boring and gets in the way.

 

Board elections are generally ignored so it doesn't take a lot of votes to win, raising the possibility that if Ed or someone like him got really organized they could win. Better to remove that possibility.

 

It's that simple.

 

john

[Nickie Irvine]

Wow. Are you saying the Board can’t think beyond that issue?! And would get rid of the democratic basis of the organization cause they can’t deal with the possibility of a curmudgeonly Board member? One thing I learned as a Board member for FSC is that sometimes the people I initially disliked the most had a ton to offer. Or you could just get by until the next election. It’s not that hard.

Maybe the problem is that the sfbc members have not been very active, so the Board/ staff don’t see their input as advantageous.

Nickie