Re: [EncinitasBikeandPedCommittee] Please VOTE NO on proposal Coalition bylaws amendment

[Frank J. Lehnerz]

Hi Folks,

These proposals seek to change the fundamental structure of the Coalition Board in particular WHO gets on and HOW. 

Here is a Google Slides presentation that attempts to visually explain what exactly these proposed by-law changes intend to do. At least this is how I undertstood things after spending a few hours trying to comb through the details while reaching out to others for some "fact checking." 

Screenshots of the slides are also below/attached and reitterates the section in the document Serge attached, entitled "PROPOSED METHOD IS LESS DEMOCRATIC FOR NOMINATING BOARD CANDITATES" 

On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 at 08:38, Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

I recommend that we all vote No; I will.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 10:43 PM Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi everyone!

I've been representing SDBC and the whole cycling community as best as I can on the board of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition for almost 20 years now. My priorities, along with most of the other club reps on the board, have always been to protect our rights to ride in the road, to make the roads safer, to ensure bike infrastructure is high quality, and to make cycling in San Diego even more inviting for all.

Others have different priorities, and this sometimes leads to uncomfortable contention. As a result, those who prioritize building physical separation between cars and bikes at the top have proposed a change to the Coalition bylaws that would eliminate club reps like myself from the board.  

Obviously, I think that's a very bad idea, hope you agree, and ask that you'll please take a few minutes now to register to vote on Zoom on 7/27, and then attend the Zoom voting session at 6:30pm on Wednesday 7/27 to VOTE NO on this bylaws amendment.

If you have any questions, hopefully you'll find the answer here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10kQyjwWg0NGWLSWuE5_9fSkSUYh_0YyiTIwzXjX17LU/edit?usp=sharing

How to vote:

1. If you’re not already a Coalition member, join (for free) TODAY, here:
• https://sdbikecoalition.org/join/
2. Register on Zoom by 7/25 to VOTE NO on 7/2.
• https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_5_lr3QtGSaK2IKe1A2lhIA
3. Attend a short 7/27 Zoom meeting to VOTE NO at 6:30PM

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thanks,
Serge

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BikeWalkEncinitas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to EncinitasBikeAndPedestr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/EncinitasBikeAndPedestrianCommittee/CAEy9bH7HocughQRA%3DEHworvPpwZ1yVw_PoaznH_%3D2df0AJfsxg%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BikeWalkEncinitas" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to EncinitasBikeAndPedestr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/EncinitasBikeAndPedestrianCommittee/CAG28zXco5BTnAgaBNZANaeNpTEs9F7wGVoQhUm9mE0rc%3D_4MNA%40mail.gmail.com.

[stephanvance stephanvance]

I'd like to correct a few misconceptions or misunderstandings about the upcoming vote by Bike Coalition members on the proposed bylaw amendments. First the amendment will not prevent any member of a bike club from being on the Board of Directors. They would only need to run for the position just like all the other Board members. That's what is meant by making the Board selection process more democratic. In fact, there currently are two elected members who clearly identify themselves as members of a bike club, and there have been more. Input from club riders is still sought, and the Coalition established the Council of Clubs expressly to provide for that whether or not the club has a member on the Board..

Second, the process for being nominated to be a Board member hasn't changed except that the Coalition will no longer take nomination from the Board at the time of the meeting where the vote takes place. There is a good reason for this. The current bylaws require a slate of candidates to be sent to the Board 30 days prior to the vote. This is so the Governance Committee can gather information about the candidates that the membership can see in advance of the vote. We want to know who we are voting on. The nomination process through the Governance Committee won't change if the amendments pass. Every Board member, and even every Coalition member is welcome to participate in the  nomination process. Decisions are made by those who show up and do the work. If the outcome is important to you, then show up. 

Yes there have been some significant differences on some policy issues at the Coalition Board, but I honestly believe the Board has made some significant strides in reducing the differences in opinion by basing our policy decisions on what we see working for other areas around the country and other bike advocacy groups. The proposed bylaw amendments will make our organizational structure consistent with every other professionally run bike advocacy group around the state and the country that I am aware of. The smaller size of the Board will ensure each member has the space to contribute, and the term limits (3 2-year terms or six years) provide time for people to make a difference, but also create  room for new voices over time. It's the current structure that includes unelected Board members with no term limits from however many clubs want seats on the Board that is at odds with good practice.

Please join us in making the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition a better organization for all of us by becoming a member if you aren't (it's FREE!), registering for the meeting by July 25, and voting yes on July 27. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of this important decision.

Stephan Vance

Chair, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition Board of Directors

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to San-Diego-Bicyclis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum/CAA58Sze67q29CED_61RC_beX1bWF%2BSwXa6jSzoYJnddFTqx5XA%40mail.gmail.com.

 

[Jim Baross]

For what it's worth, I disagree with Stephan and the current proposal for a bylaw change.

I urge you all to register as a Coalition member and to vote NO on this damaging Bylaw change.

How to vote:

1. If you’re not already a Coalition member, join (for free) TODAY or very soon, here:

• https://sdbikecoalition.org/join/
1. Register on Zoom by 7/25 to VOTE NO on 7/2.
• https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_5_lr3QtGSaK2IKe1A2lhIA

1. Attend a short 7/27 Zoom meeting to VOTE NO online at approximately 6:30PM

Jim Baross

Board Member, League of American Bicyclists

President, Calif. Assoc. of Bicycling Organizations

Board Member, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition

Sender notified by Mailtrack

07/20/22, 07:43:34 PM

[Serge Issakov]

Hi Stephan and all,

I too would like to "correct a few misconceptions or misunderstandings about the upcoming vote by Bike Coalition members on the proposed bylaw amendments".  

• Club representatives like myself are elected by Coalition members just like at-large board members are, it's just a subset of the full membership that are members of each representative's respective club that elects the club reps. How exactly the coalition, the community, or anyone would benefit from having all board members elected by the full Coalition membership remains unaddressed, much less answered to any reasonable satisfaction. In cities like Encinitas and San Diego representatives are elected by district. Would the system be more fair or "more democratic" if everyone voted on every council member instead of doing it by district? 
• Non-profit organizations like the Coalition have a wide degree of latitude in determining how their board members are selected. On one extreme, organizations that have a very specific mission may have a self-selected board, where the board itself selects its own members. In contrast, the mission of the Coalition is relatively broad. From encouraging more people to cycle more to protecting and expanding the rights of cyclists, evaluating and weighing in on bike infrastructure projects, providing education, etc.  Naturally, there are differing opinions on how best to achieve these goals, and how to prioritize among them when there are conflicts. Having a diversity of opinions about the best directions to take can be cumbersome at times, but in the end that's what makes our organization a coalition, and gives it extraordinary power and strength. The founders of the Coalition had the wisdom to realize they could achieve such a diversity of opinion and broad representation from the cycling community by including club representatives selected by local bike clubs on their board. That's just as true today as it was 35 years ago.
• Trivializing the importance of removing the right of board members to nominate candidates at the annual meeting is very misleading. It may have been presented to you as an insignificant change, but you must by now understand that it shifts the entire power of selecting and presenting the slate of candidates at the annual meeting to one person: The Chair of the Governance committee, who, coincidentally, is the primary author of this proposal to change the bylaws. Under the current and proposed bylaws, if you, for example, wisely wanted to nominate Kristine Schindler to the board, you can let the Governance Committee know, they would decide whether they agree, and ultimately the Chair is charged with deciding whether to include her on the slate presented at the time of the election. However, should the Committee or Chair decide to not include her for any reason whatsoever, under the current bylaws you (or any other board member) could still nominate her at the annual meeting. The importance of retaining that power is subtle: it's precisely because you have the ability to nominate her anyway at the Annual Meeting that it behooves the Committee and Chair to not dismiss your suggestion in the first place. Removing that ability amounts to  an enormous power grab in terms of how board candidates are selected: from every individual board member to just the Governance Committee and ultimately only its Chair. This seemingly subtle change but actual enormous power grab alone warrants rejection of the proposal.
• Stephan, if you "honestly believe the Board has made some significant strides in reducing the differences in opinion", you might want to let the rest of your Executive Committee know. Your colleagues, the main proponents of this proposal, have recently made it quite clear that that is not their opinion at all. To the contrary. The primary author of the proposal, and Chair of the Governance Committee, Katie Crist, has revealed that this proposal is the culmination of "years of struggle to ... eliminate the hold the cycle club / VCs have on this organization."  Yes, "eliminate" is her word.  In the meantime, Jacob Mandel, our Advocacy Committee Chair, has exposed sexism, ageism and racism in expressing why this proposal is important to him: "These cyclists — mostly older, white men — have held our organization hostage, bullying anyone who disagrees with them and causing massive internal issues in our advocacy work."  These are not the words of people seeking ways to work effectively with their fellow board members.
• How exactly this alleged "holding hostage" and "bullying" has manifested itself is not stated, because it's false. The staff and leadership and majority of the board is dominated by board members who are not club representatives or are even club members. Staff and board leadership is constantly taking actions and making decisions over which clubs have no say whatsoever, much less the ability to influence it. For example, we didn't have the ability to change the decision to stop supporting CABO for a few years, we couldn't stop the elimination of the rule that required 50% of the board to be club reps, we couldn't persuade Coalition leadership to oppose the Cardiff 101 cycle track project (which has caused 29 crashes so far, including one this week), and we couldn't stop these bylaws changes from being proposed. The notion that we have any control over what the Coalition does, much less are holding anyone hostage or are bullying anyone, is absurd, unless civil refutation of weak arguments is now considered "bullying". 

Reminder: if you have not yet registered to vote on 7/27:

1) If you’re not already a Coalition member, join (for free) TODAY!

https://sdbikecoalition.org/join/

2) Register on Zoom by 7/25 to VOTE NO on 7/27

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_5_lr3QtGSaK2IKe1A2lhIA (Some time after you register you'll get a link via email to use to attend the 7/27 Zoom meeting.)

3) Attend a short 7/27 Zoom meeting to VOTE NO at 6:30PM

Regards,

Serge

SDBC representative, San Diego County Coalition Board of Directors

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 4:44 PM stephanvance stephanvance <stepha...@cox.net> wrote:

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum/67651244.2127215.1658360662959%40myemail.cox.net.

[Frank J. Lehnerz]

Good Evening Stephen, 

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and for the sake of discussion here and agree with everything you wrote above and that your motivations are genuinely in favor of creating a more diverse, democratically selected board. Also I will be temporarily setting aside the fact you've been a bit of a roadblock by being uncharitable to the kind requests of Myles with the Council of Clubs. In particular his requests to you for fairness and for pointing out the lack of neutrality in the Coalition's emails and social media posts.

A Democratic system requires an honest and competent leadership who can be held accountable if power is misused or abused. It also requires trust and transparency to the Membership. The recent by-law change does not meet these criteria, instead it sets up a Junta. 

However, what's really important here is that the desires of at least  two of your colleagues within the high leadership inside the Coalition have revealed very different motivations for these proposed changes which do not match the claims you've made here nor what the Coalition's official communications channels indicate. 

Please review Jacob's email in full, below.

<<Hello BikeSD friends — 
I am writing to you all with what I know is a huge ask — I would really, really appreciate it if you could sign up as a member of the Bicycle Coalition and vote YES on these bylaw changes on July 27th. 
For those unaware, the Bicycle Coalition has been held hostage for years by a group of cyclists who are against building the safe, protected bicycle infrastructure San Diego County needs to get more people riding bikes. These cyclists — mostly older, white men — have held our organization hostage, bullying anyone who disagrees with them and causing massive internal issues in our advocacy work. In fact, BikeSD was formed in part due to these cyclists pushing young, progressive cyclists out of the Coalition.
As part of the leadership team at the Bicycle Coalition, I view this period of our organization’s history as incredibly shameful. I believe that our advocacy is better when we pedal together — and as such, SDCBC leadership has been working over the past few years to rebuild our relationship with your organization. We hope to continue to work together in the future to protect vulnerable road users — but we need your help to make this happen.
So how can you help? The Coalition’s Leadership has proposed significant changes to the way our organization operates, and we need as many YES votes as possible when our organization votes on them later this month. Here’s what you’ll need to do:
1) Become a member of the Bicycle Coalition before July 25th. You can sign up for free by clicking here.
2) Register for the bylaws voting session. Sign up using this link.
3) Show up at the virtual vote on July 27th @ 6:30 PM and vote YES! The vote should occur early in the meeting, so it won’t take too much of your time. You’re welcome to stay for the rest of the meeting as well. 
Please let me know if you are able to make it, or if you have any questions. 
In solidarity,
Jacob Mandel
Advocacy Committee Chair

San Diego County Bicycle Coalition>>

 

Katie's (who heads the Governance Committee) motivations seem to be of ill-intent as well although only an excerpt was provided. 

It's one thing to make a simple statement that cycling has a larger percentage of a certain rage, age, or sex and note that such a composition strives from appropriate diversity requirements. But it's a whole other thing to openly admit a bias against those with external gonads, a dermatological original sin (at least in the mind of the Noble Petulant Anointed) and who've circled around the sun a few more times. This is far from the first time such identity politics nonsense have been used in the bicycling advocacy domain to slur people either. 

 
Jacob's statement that the Bicycle Coalition has been "held hostage" by "a group of cyclists who are against building safe, protected bicycle infrastructure in SD County to get more people riding bikes," is also a misrepresentation of the positions held by these individuals. 

Assuming Jacob himself is a victim of this grotesque crime, he seems to have developed Stockholm Syndrome and worked with many of his captors on a document that guidelines some best practices for cycle-track design earlier this year with a focus on objective safety as opposed to platitudes. Such document is even more important now that people are using e-bikes and electric scooters in these bikeways too.

Sure these folks can be a pain in the ass to deal with at times, but they also don't want to see some person's internal organs spilled all over the road as a result of a right hook exasperated by so-called "protection," nor do they want to hear about a bicyclist who thought they were doing everything right using a door zone bike lane only to fall victim to a dooring.

It's also a complete delusion to sell this by-laws proposal as a strategy to diversify or democratize the Coalition's Board and it's utterly disgusting for the leadership to use claims such to manipulate the good will of Membership (as well as whipping Staff around like pawns) into believing this is the true intent. This level of deceit mirrors that of abusers and people with Cluster B personality disorders.  

One of the reasons both myself, and apparently at least one other individual, chose not to run for another Board term last year had much to do with the dysfunction of the Leadership and the environment of distrust they fostered.

Frank 

[Myles]

Richard and Stephan,

This email from Katie dated July 14 explains why the clubs site honestly do not trust Katie to allow any person who indicates an interest in running for a board seat to run. When she say this:

"I hope you also know that there are people like me who have been involved for more than 10 years trying to get us to this historic vote. It has been years of struggle to get our board to a place where we could put this before the membership and finally have a chance to eliminate the hold the cycling club / VCs have on this organization.”

Given this statement from Katie, the clubs have good reason to believe that not all persons interested in running for an elected board seat would actually be allowed on the slate.

Myles

From: Katie Crist <katiecrist1@gmail.com>

Date: Thu, Jul 14, 2022, 11:07

Subject: Appeal for help with bike coalition vote!

To: Nevo Magnezi <ne...@bikesd.org>, Nevo Magnezi <nm...@protonmail.com>, Brer Marsh <brer....@gmail.com>

Hi Nevo and Brer,

Great to see you last night Nevo. The happy hour had a great turnout!

I'm reaching out to you about the upcoming Bike Coalition vote. I know you are both intimately aware of the history of our organization. I hope you also know that there are people like me who have been involved for more than 10 years trying to get us to this historic vote. It has been years of struggle to get our board to a place where we could put this before the membership and finally have a chance to eliminate the hold the cycling club / VCs have on this organization.  

As of now, they've got 200+ club riders registered to vote so we need all the help we can get to get the proposal approved. We anticipate needing ~300 people in support to get it through. I think we can do it but we need to mobilize as many networks as we can. Your org is really connected to the folks who would support this so I'm hoping we can work together to make it happen. 

Essentially the changes being proposed are:

• reducing our board from 30+ to 15

• having all board members be elected, with the exception of 1 Bike Walk Alliance representative and 1 Council of Clubs representative (as opposed to our current situation where any club representative gets a Board seat if they want it)

• Introducing term limits

I'm happy to talk further if you'd like. I'm also happy for you to put out messaging that you think would appeal to your followers. We obviously have to be somewhat PC in ours.

Thanks in advance and let me know how I can help!

Katie

On Jul 22, 2022, at 12:53 PM, Richard Opper <ric...@richardopper.com> wrote:

Serge – you are jousting at windmills.  There is no “power grab” going on here, and frankly, I’ve yet to see any power to grab.  The Board is trying to slim down to mirror best practices for non-profits, and the idea that board members are those who actually want to be  board member, and therefore run in an election like everyone else, is neither alarming nor inequitable.  To have divined a nefarious purpose and imagine there is one power hungry fiend behind it is to have invented a monster.  But if we look under the bed, there is no monster.  Only volunteers trying their best to keep the organization responsive to the dynamic change our society is going through, and that lies ahead.  Poor Katy has been painted with a very “Q-anonish” brush here.  Not warranted.  If the worry is only that those who want to run should all have an equal shot at it, and that no single person is going to play “board god”, then Stephan’s suggestion of a formal procedure, or perhaps an additional bylaw amendment, should be easy to effect.  Let’s hope that cycling brings us peace and not war, OK?    

 

Richard G. Opper

3136 Dumas St.

San Diego, CA 92106

Cell: 619.417-6899

“I was not yet 16 when I understood a great deal, from having ridden bicycles for so long, about style, speed, grace, purpose, value, form, integrity, health, humor, music, breathing, and finally and perhaps best, of the relationship between the beginning and the end.”     William Saroyan

 

From: sdcbc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:sdcbc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Serge Issakov
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2022 10:54 PM
To: stephanvance stephanvance <stepha...@cox.net>
Cc: San Diego Bike Forum <San-Diego-Bi...@googlegroups.com>; encinitasbikeandp...@googlegroups.com; encinita...@gmail.com <encinita...@gmail.com>; sdcbc_council_of_bicycle_clubs <sdcbc_council_o...@googlegroups.com>; sdcbc-board <sdcbc...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [SDCBC-Board] Re: [San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum] Re: [EncinitasBikeandPedCommittee] Please VOTE NO on proposal Coalition bylaws amendment

 

Hi Stephan and all,

 

I too would like to "correct a few misconceptions or misunderstandings about the upcoming vote by Bike Coalition members on the proposed bylaw amendments".  

• Club representatives like myself are elected by Coalition members just like at-large board members are, it's just a subset of the full membership that are members of each representative's respective club that elects the club reps. How exactly the coalition, the community, or anyone would benefit from having all board members elected by the full Coalition membership remains unaddressed, much less answered to any reasonable satisfaction. In cities like Encinitas and San Diego representatives are elected by district. Would the system be more fair or "more democratic" if everyone voted on every council member instead of doing it by district? 

• Non-profit organizations like the Coalition have a wide degree of latitude in determining how their board members are selected. On one extreme, organizations that have a very specific mission may have a self-selected board, where the board itself selects its own members. In contrast, the mission of the Coalition is relatively broad. From encouraging more people to cycle more to protecting and expanding the rights of cyclists, evaluating and weighing in on bike infrastructure projects, providing education, etc.  Naturally, there are differing opinions on how best to achieve these goals, and how to prioritize among them when there are conflicts. Having a diversity of opinions about the best directions to take can be cumbersome at times, but in the end that's what makes our organization a coalition, and gives it extraordinary power and strength.The founders of the Coalition had the wisdom to realize they could achieve such a diversity of opinion and broad representation from the cycling community by including club representatives selected by local bike clubs on their board. That's just as true today as it was 35 years ago.

• Trivializing the importance of removing the right of board members to nominate candidates at the annual meeting is very misleading. It may have been presented to you as an insignificant change, but you must by now understand that it shifts the entire power of selecting and presenting the slate of candidates at the annual meeting to one person: The Chair of the Governance committee, who, coincidentally, is the primary author of this proposal to change the bylaws. Under the current and proposed bylaws, if you, for example, wisely wanted to nominate Kristine Schindler to the board, you can let the Governance Committee know, they would decide whether they agree, and ultimately the Chair is charged with deciding whether to include her on the slate presented at the time of the election. However, should the Committee or Chair decide to not include her for any reason whatsoever, under the current bylaws you (or any other board member) could still nominate her at the annual meeting. The importance of retaining that power is subtle: it's precisely because you have the ability to nominate her anyway at the Annual Meeting that it behooves the Committee and Chair to not dismiss your suggestion in the first place. Removing that ability amounts to  an enormous power grab in terms of how board candidates are selected: from every individual board member to just the Governance Committee and ultimately only its Chair. This seemingly subtle change but actual enormous power grab alone warrants rejection of the proposal.
• Stephan, if you "honestly believe the Board has made some significant strides in reducing the differences in opinion", you might want to let the rest of your Executive Committee know. Your colleagues, the main proponents of this proposal, have recently made it quite clear that that is not their opinion at all. To the contrary. The primary author of the proposal, and Chair of the Governance Committee, Katie Crist, has revealed that this proposal is the culmination of "years of struggle to ... eliminate the hold the cycle club / VCs have on this organization."  Yes, "eliminate" is her word.  In the meantime, Jacob Mandel, our Advocacy Committee Chair, has exposed sexism, ageism and racism in expressing why this proposal is important to him: "These cyclists — mostly older, white men — have held our organization hostage, bullying anyone who disagrees with them and causing massive internal issues in our advocacy work."  These are not the words of people seeking ways to work effectively with their fellow board members.
• How exactly this alleged "holding hostage" and "bullying" has manifested itself is not stated, because it's false. The staff and leadership and majority of the board is dominated by board members who are not club representatives or are even club members. Staff and board leadership is constantly taking actions and making decisions over which clubs have no say whatsoever, much less the ability to influence it. For example, we didn't have the ability to change the decision to stop supporting CABO for a few years, we couldn't stop the elimination of the rule that required 50% of the board to be club reps, we couldn't persuade Coalition leadership to oppose the Cardiff 101 cycle track project (which has caused 29 crashes so far, including one this week), and we couldn't stop these bylaws changes from being proposed. The notion that we have any control over what the Coalition does, much less are holding anyone hostage or are bullying anyone, is absurd, unless civil refutation of weak arguments is now considered "bullying". 

Reminder: if you have not yet registered to vote on 7/27:

1) If you’re not already a Coalition member, join (for free) TODAY!

https://sdbikecoalition.org/join/

 

2) Register on Zoom by 7/25 to VOTE NO on 7/27

https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_5_lr3QtGSaK2IKe1A2lhIA (Some time after you register you'll get a link via email to use to attend the 7/27 Zoom meeting.)

 

3) Attend a short 7/27 Zoom meeting to VOTE NO at 6:30PM

 

Regards,

Serge

SDBC representative, San Diego County Coalition Board of Directors

 

On Wed, Jul 20, 2022 at 4:44 PM stephanvance stephanvance <stepha...@cox.net> wrote:

 

I'd like to correct a few misconceptions or misunderstandings about the upcoming vote by Bike Coalition members on the proposed bylaw amendments. First the amendment will not prevent any member of a bike club from being on the Board of Directors. They would only need to run for the position just like all the other Board members. That's what is meant by making the Board selection process more democratic. In fact, there currently are two elected members who clearly identify themselves as members of a bike club, and there have been more. Input from club riders is still sought, and the Coalition established the Council of Clubs expressly to provide for that whether or not the club has a member on the Board..

Second, the process for being nominated to be a Board member hasn't changed except that the Coalition will no longer take nomination from the Board at the time of the meeting where the vote takes place. There is a good reason for this. The current bylaws require a slate of candidates to be sent to the Board 30 days prior to the vote. This is so the Governance Committee can gather information about the candidates that the membership can see in advance of the vote. We want to know who we are voting on. The nomination process through the Governance Committee won't change if the amendments pass. Every Board member, and even every Coalition member is welcome to participate in the  nomination process. Decisions are made by those who show up and do the work. If the outcome is important to you, then show up. 

 

Yes there have been some significant differences on some policy issues at the Coalition Board, but I honestly believe the Board has made some significant strides in reducing the differences in opinion by basing our policy decisions on what we see working for other areas around the country and other bike advocacy groups. The proposed bylaw amendments will make our organizational structure consistent with every other professionally run bike advocacy group around the state and the country that I am aware of. The smaller size of the Board will ensure each member has the space to contribute, and the term limits (3 2-year terms or six years) provide time for people to make a difference, but also create  room for new voices over time. It's the current structure that includes unelected Board members with no term limits from however many clubs want seats on the Board that is at odds with good practice.

Please join us in making the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition a better organization for all of us by becoming a member if you aren't (it's FREE!), registering for the meeting by July 25, and voting yes on July 27. Thanks for your thoughtful consideration of this important decision.

Stephan Vance

Chair, San Diego County Bicycle Coalition Board of Directors

 

On July 20, 2022 at 3:20 PM "Frank J. Lehnerz" <flehne...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Folks,

 

These proposals seek to change the fundamental structure of the Coalition Board in particular WHO gets on and HOW. 

 

Here is a Google Slides presentation that attempts to visually explain what exactly these proposed by-law changes intend to do. At least this is how I undertstood things after spending a few hours trying to comb through the details while reaching out to others for some "fact checking." 

 

 

Screenshots of the slides are also below/attached and reitterates the section in the document Serge attached, entitled "PROPOSED METHOD IS LESS DEMOCRATIC FOR NOMINATING BOARD CANDITATES" 

 

<image002.png>

 

<image003.png>

<image004.png>

 

On Wed, 20 Jul 2022 at 08:38, Jim Baross <jimb...@cox.net> wrote:

I recommend that we all vote No; I will. 

 

On Tue, Jul 19, 2022, 10:43 PM Serge Issakov <serge....@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi everyone! 

 

I've been representing SDBC and the whole cycling community as best as I can on the board of the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition for almost 20 years now. My priorities, along with most of the other club reps on the board, have always been to protect our rights to ride in the road, to make the roads safer, to ensure bike infrastructure is high quality, and to make cycling in San Diego even more inviting for all.

 

Others have different priorities, and this sometimes leads to uncomfortable contention. As a result, those who prioritize building physical separation between cars and bikes at the top have proposed a change to the Coalition bylaws that would eliminate club reps like myself from the board.   

 

Obviously, I think that's a very bad idea, hope you agree, and ask that you'll please take a few minutes now to register to vote on Zoom on 7/27, and then attend the Zoom voting session at 6:30pm on Wednesday 7/27 to VOTE NO on this bylaws amendment. 

 

If you have any questions, hopefully you'll find the answer here: 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/10kQyjwWg0NGWLSWuE5_9fSkSUYh_0YyiTIwzXjX17LU/edit?usp=sharing

 

How to vote:

1.      If you’re not already a Coalition member, join (for free) TODAY, here:

o   https://sdbikecoalition.org/join/

2.      Register on Zoom by 7/25 to VOTE NO on 7/2.

o   https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_5_lr3QtGSaK2IKe1A2lhIA

3.      Attend a short 7/27 Zoom meeting to VOTE NO at 6:30PM

If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me.

 

Thanks, 
Serge 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BikeWalkEncinitas" group. 
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toEncinitasBikeAndPedestr...@googlegroups.com. 
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/EncinitasBikeAndPedestrianCommittee/CAEy9bH7HocughQRA%3DEHworvPpwZ1yVw_PoaznH_%3D2df0AJfsxg%40mail.gmail.com.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BikeWalkEncinitas" group. 
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email toEncinitasBikeAndPedestr...@googlegroups.com. 
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/EncinitasBikeAndPedestrianCommittee/CAG28zXco5BTnAgaBNZANaeNpTEs9F7wGVoQhUm9mE0rc%3D_4MNA%40mail.gmail.com.

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group. 
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to San-Diego-Bicyclis...@googlegroups.com. 
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum/CAA58Sze67q29CED_61RC_beX1bWF%2BSwXa6jSzoYJnddFTqx5XA%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "San Diego Bicyclist Forum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to San-Diego-Bicyclis...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/San-Diego-Bicyclist-Forum/67651244.2127215.1658360662959%40myemail.cox.net.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sdcbc-board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sdcbc-board...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sdcbc-board/CAEy9bH7jDigWkEJgRoZQveN-sv_4vLrun2RqU%2BMwhn1KvuRqAQ%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sdcbc-board" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sdcbc-board...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sdcbc-board/BY5PR20MB3169D183CD11E5FB9789E64FCD909%40BY5PR20MB3169.namprd20.prod.outlook.com.

[Frank J. Lehnerz]

Stephen writes:

Thank you Richard for helping everyone to think clearly and fairly about this. No one is exploring options to ensure access to nominations yet, but I have stated more than once in these discussions about the bylaws that the Governance Committee will be asked, at least by me, to draft formal, written procedures for taking and processing nominations to the Board.

Despite all the hand waving from everybody over this upcoming vote which is slated to change the markup of the Coalition in a profound way, are you seriously saying that no one in this illustrious leadership currently dictating the Coalition's future have thought about the details on access to nominations? 

At a bare minimum ya'll could have avoided some of these questions. How many months did you spend on this again? Good grief! 

How exactly are the Membership, whether "club" or not, supposed to trust that what you're selling them is open and democratic again? 

Richard writes:

I think her language was inartful - but it doesn’t justify the extraordinary response it engendered.  Unfortunately, the sense of peril that was drummed up is counter productive. There are numerous solutions to the issue of insuring equal access to nominations. No one is exploring any of them so the baby gets tossed with the bath water. 

Perhaps a bit of context is missing with all the back and forth? 

To reiterate, earlier this week both the SDCBC Advocacy Chair Jacob Mendel, and the SDCBC Governance Committee Chair, Katie Crist both reached out to the organization BikeSD requesting their help in recruiting their members to join SDCBC and vote "yes" for the proposed by-law amendments. 

Katie wrote:

 I hope you also know that there are people like me who have been involved for more than 10 years trying to get us to this historic vote. It has been years of struggle to get our board to a place where we could put this before the membership and finally have a chance to eliminate the hold the cycling club / VCs have on this organization.  

Katie specifically mentioned her decade-long intent was to get rid of Board Members who belong to Clubs and/or so-called "VC's" which used to mean "vehicular cyclist" (a bicyclist who obeys the rules of the road for drivers of vehicles) but has turned into a slur of sorts by certain factions of the bicycling advocacy space. 

She even stated in her message to BikeSD she'd be willing to help them draft a copy of what to send to their members, adding, "We obviously have to be somewhat PC in ours."

One of other the "inartful" statements is the following from Jacob: 

For those unaware, the Bicycle Coalition has been held hostage for years by a group of cyclists who are against building the safe, protected bicycle infrastructure San Diego County needs to get more people riding bikes. These cyclists — mostly older, white men — have held our organization hostage, bullying anyone who disagrees with them and causing massive internal issues in our advocacy work. 

This statement is far from "inartful," it's bigoted - specifically against people of a certain age, skin color, and biological sex - none of which they chose at birth to possess.  

What is really wanted is ideological conformity. It's also an admittance that diversity and inclusion are smoke screens, and the Membership as well as Staff and the grant-funders are being misled into voting for the fantasies of these few individuals. 

Jacob's statement in particular is also a violation of SDCBC's Guidelines for Inclusion which from what I understand were created specifically to prevent and address statements like this. 

Frank 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 15:29, Stephan Vance <stepha...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you Richard for helping everyone to think clearly and fairly about this. No one is exploring options to ensure access to nominations yet, but I have stated more than once in these discussions about the bylaws that the Governance Committee will be asked, at least by me, to draft formal, written procedures for taking and processing nominations to the Board.

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 2:51 PM Richard Opper <ric...@richardopper.com> wrote:

I think her language was inartful - but it doesn’t justify the extraordinary response it engendered.  Unfortunately, the sense of peril that was drummed up is counter productive. There are numerous solutions to the issue of insuring equal access to nominations. No one is exploring any of them so the baby gets tossed with the bath water.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 22, 2022, at 1:13 PM, Myles <mpom...@san.rr.com> wrote:

 Richard and Stephan,

--

Stephan

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SDCBC_Council_of_Bicycle_Clubs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sdcbc_council_of_bicy...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sdcbc_council_of_bicycle_clubs/CAHQQwD_aSa7aLnP6YJUNk6P7ARr2-7h-Nv3524TD58_qG17--g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Frank J. Lehnerz]

Stephen,

As you may or may not recall, I served on the Board, and prior to that was subject to the nomination process. It was a lot of information to absorb so it's quite possible I wasn't aware of all the details perhaps from not being completely attentive. But yes, I wasn't aware until fairly recently that the nomination process was not a formal or written process which is what I was criticizing in the last email. This bugged me immensely in the preparation of the slides presented several emails ago because I tried hardest to only obtain the information from the actual by-laws and not from any individuals who may introduce a bias.  And since the proposed by-law changes lean so heavily on this, and ya'll seem so damned insistent, then not formalizing this process in preparation for this vote is at a bare minimum a grotesque oversight. Apparently those interested either have to fish through these emails or watch that informational session hosted last week. 

However this isn't about me. I've moved on from that role in the Coalition - in large part as I said earlier because of the utter dysfunction and the culture of mistrust which IMO would NOT be solved by voting "yes" (or "no" for that matter). 

This is about the Membership who depend on competent, principle-driven leadership along with the truth being told to them about why this vote is happening. They're also depending on the good-will, reputation, and what's left of actual expertise in the organization to improve bicycling in the county. 

It's also about the staff, which you've regularly reminded us that we were somehow causing them hell, yet it's the Leadership who primarily work with these individuals. 

But it's also about transparency to the big spenders who now appear to be pulling some of the strings now that membership for individuals is donation-optional. 

Frank 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 17:25, Stephan Vance <stepha...@gmail.com> wrote:

We have had a nomination process Frank that we have used for the last two elections of Directors, but apparently you weren't paying attention. All we are proposing to do now is codify the process in a written statement, and make sure everyone is in agreement.

--

Stephan

[F Lehnerz]



Regarding this point:

 This is correct, on both sides of the issue, but follow the money. Currently, grants and funding are leaning towards Class IV bikeways. The question is, are all of them safe? And if not, how do we make them safe. Also, if not deemed safe by those who wish to travel at a speed higher than that of a family with children, why aren't there automatic sharrows requested beside these facilities as well? After all, my understanding of Class IV Bikeways is that they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the roadway. Therefore, requesting "Complete Streets" would seem obvious. Also, e-bikes are rarely mentioned. Five years ago, they were rarely seen. Now, even on uphill sections 20mph is attainable by novices who do not understand what the terms "Right Hook" or "Left Cross" are, not to mention the "Door Zone".

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 22, 2022, at 18:54, David Nichols <purples...@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Only volunteers trying their best to keep the organization responsive to the dynamic change our society is going through, and that lies ahead." This is correct, on both sides of the issue, but follow the money. Currently, grants and funding are leaning towards Class IV bikeways. The question is, are all of them safe? And if not, how do we make them safe. Also, if not deemed safe by those who wish to travel at a speed higher than that of a family with children, why aren't there automatic sharrows requested beside these facilities as well? After all, my understanding of Class IV Bikeways is that they do not fall under the jurisdiction of the roadway. Therefore, requesting "Complete Streets" would seem obvious. Also, e-bikes are rarely mentioned. Five years ago, they were rarely seen. Now, even on uphill sections 20mph is attainable by novices who do not understand what the terms "Right Hook" or "Left Cross" are, not to mention the "Door Zone".

[Serge Issakov]

On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 7:36 PM Katie Crist <katie...@gmail.com> wrote:

Myles, Serge, Frank et al.,

Does this email from July 14th, 2022 explain your distrust and vehement opposition to amending the bylaws 5 years ago when first proposed?  

This email explains your opposition at every meeting we’ve had over the past several years to try to diversify our board and increase representation for people who ride bikes for reasons outside of sport?

These are false and unsubstantiated claims. A very divisive interpretation and characterization of the views of others, starting with Frank not even being active in local advocacy five years ago. 

 

This email explains your vote on April 27th as one of 5 lone votes of opposition? 

And yet you characterize these "5 lone votes" as "the hold the cycling club / VCs have on this organization" that you need to eliminate. Ever look in the mirror Katie? I recommend it.

 

This email explains why NOT ONE of you has ever participated with the election process or the Governance Committee or contributed a single nominee, despite being asked every year? 

You're not counting Frank?  Linda?  Why?

 

Or is this unfortunately public email, born out of years of frustration from being the recipient of your unwavering conspiratorial and aggressive opposition to common sense progress in the organization, really just a convenient pretext for the latest installment of your panicked campaign to keep yourselves in power at all costs. 

Is it really just an opportune way for you to desperately cling to a seat on the board,  knowing it’s the only thing lending legitimacy to your disproven views on bike advocacy. 

 

Is it really just a chance for you to play victim and not have to answer the question on why you feel your voices are so much more valuable than anyone else’s that you should remain on the Board since the inception of the Coalition. 

I’m sure this email explains your deep distrust of any other potential person who might represent your clubs on the board,  such that you’ve not even considered developing any new leaders or bringing new voices to the table over your 30 years of your service. 

Oh, wow. Do you have any idea how much you telegraph privilege and sanctimony? I suspect not.

Despite all these emails back and forth, not you, Stephan, Jacob or any proponent has identified one specific policy, plan or any action that would be different if this proposal passes than if it doesn't. The only clear effect will be that the voice of experienced and high mileage cyclists throughout the county, as reflected through the voices of club representatives, will be even more muffled and ignored than we already are. Congratulations and well played, if you prevail. You even had Vali going for a few days last week, but she eventually saw through your smoke and mirrors.  There's no telling how many remain bamboozled, however. You have single-handedly destroyed the county's bike coalition. If so, it's something I expect you to be proud of.

Serge

Katie

On Jul 22, 2022, at 9:39 PM, Frank J. Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sdcbc_council_of_bicycle_clubs/CAA58SzckZ8exVXndjQO4z98mOhgkJuSe23it6Pfz7mA81-3x2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Frank J. Lehnerz]

Okay. I'll volunteer as tribute for this wannabe struggle session. 

Does this email from July 14th, 2022 explain your distrust and vehement opposition to amending the bylaws 5 years ago when first proposed? 

Gonna restate part of that email real fast: " I hope you also know that there are people like me who have been involved for more than 10 years trying to get us to this historic vote. It has been years of struggle to get our board to a place where we could put this before the membership and finally have a chance to eliminate the hold the cycling club / VCs have on this organization. "

Wasn't there five years ago, but your July 14th email that further confirmed my hypothesis that this current proposal was more about silencing certain viewpoints then promoting a more democratically elected board, more diverse board, promotion towards "progressive, intersectional bicycle advocacy" (whatever that gobbledygook means)  etc. So to answer part of your loaded question ("Does this email from July 14th, 2022 explain your distrust") my answer is: f*** yes. 

If you've got receipts for the others that indicates "distrust and vehement opposition to amending the bylaws 5 years ago when first proposed" please do tell. 

This email explains your opposition at every meeting we’ve had over the past several years to try to diversify our board and increase representation for people who ride bikes for reasons outside of sport?

I reject your manipulative framing and understand exactly what you're trying to do here. I get it, you most likely have a great record of success by shutting down people by guilting them in this way?  This shit does not work on me. You damned know well this isn't about anything remotely close to diversity or increasing representation. And you well know that your targets here use bicycles for other purposes than just sport. And enough with re-hashing the "VC" slur. Find a new game to play. This isn't the comments section of StreetsBlog circa mid 2010's. 

This email explains your vote on April 27th as one of 5 lone votes of opposition? 

N/A vote-wise but there were also ten who didn't vote, correct? The opposing votes are sort of a duh, though. It's only places like the Democratic People's Republic of Korea where a uh democracy is set up in a way where 100% of voters vote one way. 

This email explains why NOT ONE of you has ever participated with the election process or the Governance Committee or contributed a single nominee, despite being asked every year? 

Speaking only for myself over my two-year tenure on the board, at least. I placed trust in the Governance Committee and seldom paid attention to them and their affairs. Over the past two years, I've voted unanimously for each and every candidate on the slate and have zero regret for such decisions. Also, I wasn't up to speed/didn't care at the time the by-laws were last changed.  Personal efforts were far more with trying to keep pro-manufactured conflict nonsense out of Advocacy and then with CoC mostly because the meetings were (prior to COVID) a five minute ride from my home. 

And by the way, these folks vastly outnumber your targets already and that will probably remain the case from here on out as bicycle clubs are in a relative decline anyways. 

IMHO,  someone wanting to run for a board seat just needs to have a pulse and have some interest in bicycling. 

Or is this unfortunately public email, born out of years of frustration from being the recipient of your unwavering conspiratorial and aggressive opposition to common sense progress in the organization, really just a convenient pretext for the latest installment of your panicked campaign to keep yourselves in power at all costs. 

Is this still a question? Or did you type this in such a rage that you forgot question marks?  You can't take even a sliver of responsibility or have some self-awareness of the contents of your email. Sunlight's the best disinfectant. 

Good grief. At least you're partially correct on the panic part. Yes, we're in a panic to try to save as many members as possible from the misinformation and bias coming directly from the bowels of the Coalition Leadership in support of this dishonest power-grab. 

 

Is it really just an opportune way for you to desperately cling to a seat on the board,  knowing it’s the only thing lending legitimacy to your disproven views on bike advocacy. 

 Classic Projection. Again, it doesn't work here. Bless 'yer heart though.  Disproven views? Lulz. Not in the world where physics rules over platitudes, rent-seekers, and Fiat Academics like "Public Health Researchers." 

Is it really just a chance for you to play victim and not have to answer the question on why you feel your voices are so much more valuable than anyone else’s that you should remain on the Board since the inception of the Coalition. 

You're doing just great. Those standing up to authoritarian bigoted bullies are the farthest thing from a victim of anything. 

I’m sure this email explains your deep distrust of any other potential person who might represent your clubs on the board,  such that you’ve not even considered developing any new leaders or bringing new voices to the table over your 30 years of your service. 

I take it you have a deep knowledge in how each of the clubs selects and votes for their reps so I will defer to you unless it involves my own lived experience.  

At least in the Club I'm in, it's been a real challenge to even find people to run for board seats. It's part of, in my view, a decline in the desire to volunteer and a decline in social capital similar to the arguments put forth in Bowling Alone.  From some of the younger folks who serve/served on the board, they said their primary reasons for reducing their activity was their intense focus on career and especially helping raise their families. So it tends to be the older, often retired, empty nesters who are willing and available to serve. 

On Fri, 22 Jul 2022 at 19:36, Katie Crist <katie...@gmail.com> wrote:

Myles, Serge, Frank et al.,

Does this email from July 14th, 2022 explain your distrust and vehement opposition to amending the bylaws 5 years ago when first proposed? 

This email explains your opposition at every meeting we’ve had over the past several years to try to diversify our board and increase representation for people who ride bikes for reasons outside of sport?

This email explains your vote on April 27th as one of 5 lone votes of opposition? 

This email explains why NOT ONE of you has ever participated with the election process or the Governance Committee or contributed a single nominee, despite being asked every year? 

Or is this unfortunately public email, born out of years of frustration from being the recipient of your unwavering conspiratorial and aggressive opposition to common sense progress in the organization, really just a convenient pretext for the latest installment of your panicked campaign to keep yourselves in power at all costs. 

Is it really just an opportune way for you to desperately cling to a seat on the board,  knowing it’s the only thing lending legitimacy to your disproven views on bike advocacy. 

Is it really just a chance for you to play victim and not have to answer the question on why you feel your voices are so much more valuable than anyone else’s that you should remain on the Board since the inception of the Coalition. 

I’m sure this email explains your deep distrust of any other potential person who might represent your clubs on the board,  such that you’ve not even considered developing any new leaders or bringing new voices to the table over your 30 years of your service. 

Katie

On Jul 22, 2022, at 9:39 PM, Frank J. Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sdcbc_council_of_bicycle_clubs/CAA58SzckZ8exVXndjQO4z98mOhgkJuSe23it6Pfz7mA81-3x2w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Myles]

Katie,

You and I have had a cordial relationship for many years now. I hope that can continue despite the angry emails which have been flying back and forth on both sides the last week or so. I fear that this bylaws amendment may do lasting damage to many relationships in the Coalition. I sincerely hope that does not happen but realize that it may end up being a consequence of this process.

Regarding your email, the fact remains that the bylaws amendment gives the you and the Governance Committee sole authority to set the slate of nominees for board seats in upcoming elections. Although I understand the argument for vetting candidates, there nevertheless needs to be an alternative path toward being nominated. 

Although you and the Governance Committee may in fact end up approving every person who expresses an interest in being nominated, there is no assurance that will actually happen. I believe that you are essentially an honorable individual with integrity and so may well allow all interested people to be on the slate. However, I could certainly envision a scenario where some people might be denied because they are “too white”, “too old”, too male”, “too argumentative”, “not sufficiently supportive of leadership priorities” or any of a number of other reasons. Additionally, at some point a different person will be chair of the Governance Committee and that person may adopt a restrictive posture toward board membership even if you were to adopt a more inclusive posture, 

Additionally, the amendment gives the Board the authority to set the rules for elections. Conceivably, it could allow only sitting Board members to vote on prospective new Board candidates. This could be justified as “consistent with best practices of not-for-profit organizations”. However, the Coalition is not a typical not-for-profit which is usually characterized by a general consensus among the board members on the vision for the organization and steps to implement it. However, a coalition by definition is an organization which encompasses a variety of views and opinions. This is consistent with having a diverse board which the CoC embraces. But his amendment would of necessity cause some newly elected board members specifically added to increase diversity to lose their seats. 

These are some of the reasons why the clubs so strongly oppose this amendment. I could go on. But I hope that you can understand where we are coming from and why. 

Regardless of the outcome of the vote on Wednesday, I hope that we can continue to coexist and somehow work together for the good of the organization.

Myles 

On Jul 22, 2022, at 7:36 PM, Katie Crist <katie...@gmail.com> wrote:

Myles, Serge, Frank et al.,

Does this email from July 14th, 2022 explain your distrust and vehement opposition to amending the bylaws 5 years ago when first proposed? 

This email explains your opposition at every meeting we’ve had over the past several years to try to diversify our board and increase representation for people who ride bikes for reasons outside of sport?

This email explains your vote on April 27th as one of 5 lone votes of opposition? 

This email explains why NOT ONE of you has ever participated with the election process or the Governance Committee or contributed a single nominee, despite being asked every year? 

Or is this unfortunately public email, born out of years of frustration from being the recipient of your unwavering conspiratorial and aggressive opposition to common sense progress in the organization, really just a convenient pretext for the latest installment of your panicked campaign to keep yourselves in power at all costs. 

Is it really just an opportune way for you to desperately cling to a seat on the board,  knowing it’s the only thing lending legitimacy to your disproven views on bike advocacy. 

Is it really just a chance for you to play victim and not have to answer the question on why you feel your voices are so much more valuable than anyone else’s that you should remain on the Board since the inception of the Coalition. 

I’m sure this email explains your deep distrust of any other potential person who might represent your clubs on the board,  such that you’ve not even considered developing any new leaders or bringing new voices to the table over your 30 years of your service. 

Katie

On Jul 22, 2022, at 9:39 PM, Frank J. Lehnerz <flehne...@gmail.com> wrote:



To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sdcbc_council_of_bicycle_clubs/CAA58SzckZ8exVXndjQO4z98mOhgkJuSe23it6Pfz7mA81-3x2w%40mail.gmail.com.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SDCBC_Council_of_Bicycle_Clubs" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sdcbc_council_of_bicy...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sdcbc_council_of_bicycle_clubs/295D36E2-70DD-4232-8830-CAFBC6891298%40gmail.com.