10/12/10 UPDATE: Cascade Bicycle Club Board of Directors announces transition agreement
The following is a message from Chris Weiss, President and Chair, Board of Directors of Cascade Bicycle Club:
Dear members,
First, let me thank you for your ongoing support and your commitment to the Club. Since we announced the Board of Directors’ decision on Monday to make a change in our Executive Director, some of you have asked for more information about why we made the decision. On behalf of the Board, I want to share a few more details with you.
On Monday, Oct. 4, we met with Chuck Ayers to summarize management issues we had discussed with him for many months, to explain our need for a smooth transition in leadership and to request his resignation. After a long and respectful discussion, Chuck declined our request and the Board terminated his employment.
This decision was very difficult for the Board. All of us are avid cyclists. Chuck personally recruited most of us to serve as volunteer Board members. He’s our friend. Chuck is a person of the highest integrity and we deeply appreciate his contributions to the Club over the years. We considered our decision very carefully, over time and always through the lens of what was in the best interest of the Club now and for years to come. Difficult as it was, it is the right decision.
Cascade Bicycle Club was founded 40 years ago as a grassroots membership organization. The Board is charged with overseeing the Club’s financial viability, charting its strategic direction and supervising the Executive Director, including, if necessary, deciding whether the ED should continue to lead our Club. These core governance responsibilities are essential to the long-term viability and effective function of Cascade Bicycle Club.
Over the past few years, the Board consistently has supported Chuck and the Club staff. In addition to being responsible stewards of the Club’s finances, we evaluate and approve electoral endorsements recommended by the staff and authorize Cascade’s legal challenges, such as our successful battle with Lake Forest Park to protect the Burke Gilman Trail, the ongoing BGT Missing Link litigation, and our current challenge to the legality of the Transportation 2040 Plan.
The Board fully supports the public policy positions and strong advocacy voice of the Cascade Bicycle Club. We are 100% committed to Cascade’s continuing role as an unwavering and consistent grassroots voice to demand safe and accessible streets and trails for cycling and cyclists.
So, why the change?
As Cascade’s membership has grown – now to more than 13,000 members – so did the staff (now 23 employees), our programs and the complexity of our operations, demanding different management skills than in our earlier years.
The Club’s public voice now helps to shape our region’s transportation policies. We are one of the most potent political forces in the region and one of the strongest and most influential advocates in the nation for cyclists and cycling. To continue to be a successful advocate – in fact, in order to strengthen our advocacy while also enhancing our rides, programs and activities – we must become more strategic and focused. When tough tactics are called for, we will not shy away. But we also must build coalitions and back up our beliefs with reason and with dignity. Cascade Bicycle Club is its members, and we must always be mindful that when we speak, we represent each of you.
Chuck’s leadership helped build our advocacy position. However, increasingly, his leadership style resulted in actions and public statements that periodically were counterproductive to the image we wanted for our Club and jeopardized our lobbying to secure passage of the Vulnerable User Bill and many other advocacy initiatives. The Board grew more and more concerned that this underlying management philosophy would limit the Club’s effectiveness in serving members as well as its appeal to donors and sponsors. Critical comments of Cascade began to arise not just in the media, but among the grassroots cyclists and citizen advocates who are the lifeblood of our Club, risking the polarization of the community against cycling as Seattle moves forward with many pro-cycling reforms.
These issues are only part of a larger assessment of the Club’s leadership needs. Over the past few years, the Board has worked with and consistently supported Chuck in his efforts to promote growth and to position the Club for the future. More recently, our views have increasingly diverged regarding how the Executive Director should best execute his duties to ensure the efficient and effective management of the Club. To go into further detail about this personnel issue, and the specifics of how the Board worked with Chuck to address the Board’s concerns, would be inappropriate and inconsistent with our desire to respect Chuck’s privacy. Ultimately, only after a long process and after many careful discussions with Chuck, did the Board reach its conclusion that a change was necessary in order for the Club to realize its potential.
A change in leadership is not unusual in the business world or the nonprofit world. Many organizations find themselves at a crossroads where the successes of existing leadership cause the organization to evolve to the point where continued success requires a different style of leadership, fresh perspectives and new ideas. This is where Cascade is today.
The Board is deeply appreciative of Chuck and of the many accomplishments Cascade made under Chuck’s leadership. During his 13-year tenure, Chuck, staff, volunteers and our sponsors helped grow Cascade into the nation’s largest cycling organization. Cascade runs thousands of rides and manages dozens of events and educational programs each year. And, as noted earlier, we are influential advocates for policies to benefit cycling, cyclists and communities. Now that the Club has reached this level of success, we need an executive director who can build upon these accomplishments and expand our potential over the next decade.
This growth demands that Cascade remain a powerful voice in advocacy. Again, I want to emphasize that the Board is 100% committed to Cascade’s existing policy positions and to our identity as a grassroots organization. We endorse our local governments’ continuing strong actions to improve and extend bike trails and make bold changes to improve cycling on our roads.
To ensure a smooth transition and the ongoing operations of all our programs and activities, Board Vice-Chair Peter Morgan has taken on daily management duties for the next several weeks. A veteran cyclist, Peter is on leave from the Board and is serving Cascade pro bono. Through 2009, Peter was the Executive Vice President at Group Health. He brings extensive management experience to the role and has worked closely with Cascade staff this year in framing Cascade’s almost-completed strategic plan. The Board will immediately begin recruiting an interim executive director who will likely serve for three to six months before we hire a permanent executive director.
We will post the Executive Director job description soon. With the involvement of the Club’s staff, the Board will look for a visionary and dynamic organizational leader with experience in inspiring members, staff and communities. We’ll be looking for an ED with experience managing a large organization so that we can drive and manage continued growth.
In closing, it is important to remember that all of us are the Cascade Bicycle Club – not just a single individual – and, together, we are the voice of cyclists and cycling.
Please contact us if you would like to discuss the transition further. The Annual Meeting of the Cascade Bicycle Club is on Thursday, October 21, at 6:30 p.m. at REI. We encourage you to come. Again, thank you for your continued support.
Chris Weiss
President and Chair, Board of Directors
Cascade Bicycle Club
chris.weiss@cascadebicycleclub.com
Huh? This keeps getting more and more ridiculous. Nice spin, but I bet there’s little shred of truth to this…. Who’s taken over our club?
I may not have agreed with some of Chuck’s latest decisions but this just reeks of lame politics. The kind that could cripple this club at such an important time. Internal politics draw focus from the important matters that we should be focused on.
this sounds fishy.
i don’t recall anything controversial or hearing anything critical going on. It seemed to me, that Cascade Bicycle Club was adding up massive successes, one after another. Now looks like Cascade Bicycle Club is becoming a “big business” in its own right.
But what’s troubling is that essentially two people are now running the entire show. “Who’s taken over our club”, indeed.
two (2) people, Weiss and Taylor together own six (6) of the top positions between them: President, Vice President, Executive Director, and three (3) Committee Chairs.
http://www.cascade.org/About/board.cfm
if i didnt know any better, i’d say it looks like a cabal.
oops, i meant to say:
“two (2) people, Chris Weiss and Peter Morgan, together own six (6) of the top positions between them”
Sounds pretty underhanded and stinks all around. Chuck’s public statements “jeopardized our lobbying to secure passage of the Vulnerable User Bill”… what a load of BS. That bill died because car drivers are terrified that their way of life, driving fossil fuel vehicles is dying.
Was going to finally join Cascade this year, well that settles that. I want nothing more to do with this organization.
It’s about time that there was a change. Maybe I’ll think about getting involved again!
you need an EASTCOAST radical; someone from NYC or other large metro area because THEY DON’T PUSSY AROUND LIKE YOU GUYS DO……you guys are taking FOREVER to get the missing link finished and to me, that’s the NUMBER ONE priority. I know there’s been injuries and hopefully no fatalities (although it wouldn’t shock me if there was) due to the deadly routing you must take to circumvent the lethal industrial complexes that the missing link’s supposed to mend……we’re fed up already with your lousy excuses and blaming city hall, gov’t, politics, other businesses, lawyers, whatever and having to wait 3 months here or 6 months there and so on for this filing of motion or this hearing …..you know the routine; you guys are experts at it by now…..hell, if this were minnisota, who have the nation’s best community involvement actions, committees, citizen’s action groups, organizers, social programs, etc, they’dve has this missing link done in a DAY ! I’ll bet they can’t believe how long it’s taken us so far….we’re an embarrasement to the rest of the country’s cycling communities and you guys could care less, because if you did, you’d have checked off the missing link on your hit-list a long time ago….you always find obstacles and seem to find it convenient to stifle progress with that project…..so to me, there is THE ONLY ONE AND SOLE requirement when hiring a new ED: YOU TELL THEM TO THEIR FACE, “CAN YOU COMPLETE THE MISSING LINK IN ONE YEAR?” yeah, you heard me right, ONE YEAR, that’s all….we’re not screwing around any longer with 2,3,4 or more years because we know already that it won’t get done! damit, one year should be plenty of time and don’t talk about money; you’ve had money and plenty of it too….anything longer than two years and your own people are going to start saying, “YEAH RIGHT….TWO YEARS’LL GO TO 3 THEN 4…….” you get my drift…..sure, you’ll do all these other great things for cyclists and it’ll mask or cover up the incompetance of the missing link still not complete; you’ll put it on the back burner and say, “hey, we’ve done all these great things and we still continue to negotiate for the missing link.” to me that’s b.s.; if you can’t do the missing link then say so; say it to our faces, “people, we’ve tried for years; it’s time to move on with all the other needs of cyclists so we’ve decided to cease ALL efforts and attempts to constuct the missing link.” why don’t you just do that and be done with it already instead of making promises you’ll break or can’t keep….just say that there is no missing link any longer and it won’t happen ever….that way we’re satisfied you finally had the balls to say you’ve been beat and that’ll it’ll never be a reality…..but if you want to pursue the missing link, get an ED who knows the sole reason why they’re hired or better yet, hire someone who’ll spend fulltime on it for one year to complete it, then replace them if they’re not able to do anything else but get the missing link done in one year…..it’s certainly worth the trouble to go thru the hiring process again….it’s like hiring a contract worker….companies do it all the time: hire someone solely for a specific task, pay ‘em a bunch of money and when they’re done – they can be extended or leave but the candidate must know that right up front why they’re being hired or being considered for the ED…..if they can’t make it happen, go to the next person on your list of potentials……winston churchill said it best at the outbreak of ww2 that my dad was in (yes, i am a brit) he said, “YOU MUST SINK THE BISMARK, I DON’T CARE ABOUT ANYTHING ELSE; WHAT IT TAKES AND WHAT IT COSTS BUT YOU MUST SINK THE BISMARK” and they did in less than one week after it broke out onto the atlantic but sadly taking out our HMS Hood in the process……i know you hate me and’ll call me all sorts of foul names; go ahead; i really don’t care….i’m trying to save lives; if i didn’t care, i wouldn’t be writing this
I’m glad to see this change. After 13 years some new blood will be good. This is true of any organization or PAC. While sometimes Cascade seems more like a PAC I hope some of the changes will steer it towards being a better true bicycle club for its members and not telling them who to vote for or what lifestyle they should have. There is great potential for this organization and I anxiously wait for the future changes with excitement.
I just posted this under the earlier blog, but it is highly relevant to the direction taken here.
Roger “Who’s taken over our club?”: I think you know who, but does anyone know them?
GHG “It’s about time that there was a change. Maybe I’ll think about getting involved again!”: Too late; this is not the change you were thinking of.
PBK “I hope some of the changes will steer it towards being a better true bicycle club for its members”: I think not; this board is quite removed from the members.
There is a larger directional and cultural re-orientation going on here. This latest statement from Chris Weiss hints at a little more backstory, but this is still voiced in platitudes and mushy prose. I have seldom seen so little said in so many words.
Consequently, we are left with the impression that the Board has ambitions but no clear vision for the future. You would think they would have charted this new vision in collaboration with the members before they started their campaign of “transition in leadership”. It is likely they are just going on a fishing expedition — guided by ambition, not clear goals — at the expense of Chuck and the club.
This situation ultimately was set in motion by the (stealth) 2008 change in bylaws that turned Cascade from a member-driven club to a board-driven organization. The board is self-appointed and there is no mechanism for members to effect change except by board recall. It might make sense to do that now rather than later since the damage to the club is already done.
http://cascade.org/About/pdf/Cascade-Bicycle-Club-bylaws_2008.pdf
See Article XIII Section 2:
“The slate of directors recommended by the Nominating Committee shall be
presented to the Board not later than its August Board meeting for the Board’s review and approval. The final slate submitted to the General Membership for election at the Annual Business Meeting shall include those candidates for director recommended by the Nominating Committee and approved by the Board of Directors.”
“…actions and public statements that periodically were counterproductive to the image we wanted for our Club and jeopardized our lobbying to secure passage of the Vulnerable User Bill and many other advocacy initiatives.”
Wouldn’t this more aptly describe David Hiller’s behavior in Olympia?
“…this underlying management philosophy would limit the Club’s effectiveness in serving members as well as its appeal to donors and sponsors.”
Sounds like Chuck refused to reign in, or fire, the Hiller effect.
I truly welcome the prospect of new and renewed coalitions and alliances within the bicycling community—truly strong leaders build bridges and join in to follow other organization’s leadership when it is most needed.
I’m a longtime cascade member and sometimes ride leader.
Nobody outside the discussions really knows what went on, but I will note that 13 years is a *really* long time to have the same director for anything, and if the board members felt that the organization needed it a change, it was their *duty* to make the change.
I also welcome some new blood. Perhaps they will make the website and forums something we can be proud of rather than firmly being stuck in 1995.
I agree that anything that’s going on in the club leadership is a complete mystery to most members. Obviously, you want to protect Chuck’s dignity, but it would be nice to have a little more specific information about the board’s issues and thinking. Also, how come we’d never heard anything about this before now, when it’s a done deal?
I was really looking forward to information about why Chuck Ayers was sacked? The typical reasons for sacking an executive director: 1) members dissatisfied -> dropping membership (for example The Mountaineers), 2) staff leaving, 3) underperformance compared to other regional (or national) clubs, 4) financial troubles. None of these metrics used to gauge the health of an organization were giving as reasons for the sacking. Sigh of relief … the club is healthy!!!!
This message from the board only talks about issues with Chuck and Cascade’s advocacy … while I’m very grateful for Cascade’s effort on getting bike lanes added to our streets, and fighting to complete the much needed missing link (to name a few), to me Cascade is a lot more. Cascade is about riding a bike. Events like STP, RSVP, Chilly Hilly, daily rides, the Commute Challenge (to name a few). Cascade is about education; going into schools, low cost helmets, getting kids on bikes. On these core activities, Cascade is alive, very strong and growing … definitely not requiring immediate action. Sacking the executive director of a healthy club without having a Plan A (the job will be posted soon???) is negligent. To me this decision sounds like a clash of egos; and the principles have lost sight of the health of the complete club and who ultimately “owns” the club … Cascade’s members.
I have to agree with most of the point Etep put forth. The club doesn’t seem to be in trouble to me, nor does it seem we have any problems in advocating for bikes. If 13 years is just too long for an ED to serve, I could understand that, but there are better ways to make changes. This seems rather abrupt and therefore somewhat fishy.
Too bad about Ayers and too bad as well for David Hiller’s job prospects. Hiller is the reason why there are members of Cascade who are under 50. Without these two and the work they have done, Cascade is just a bunch of dentists and retirees riding around in circles wearing neon.
If you want to see what’s really going on in biking, look to Transportation Alternatives, BTA, SF Bike Coalition. It looks as though the CBC board is planning on rolling over and playing congressional democrat to the Seattle Business Lobby’s Tea Party brigade.
As it stands now, we’ll see whether our membership will be renewed. Show us, dear Board of Directors, that you are going to be so much more effective at advocacy. Show us.
Change is hard. Abrupt change can be shocking. Abrupt change without information is upsetting. The above reactions are very understandable, if not predictable.
Thank you, Chris for providing this explanation. Having met members of the Board, and seeing the direction the club has been going, this now makes a lot of sense.
What I can see in our future is a lot more focus on actually riding bikes, and getting more people to do it in smarter ways. If I’m right, this also means less lip service in the wrong direction, which has been annoying, at best, and detrimental, otherwise.
Again, thank you, Cascade.
Keep the rubber side down.
Thank you Chuck Ayers for your years of service to the Cascade Bicycle Club and its members. Good luck with your next endeavor!
The members’ meeting next week would be a good chance to discuss this situation.
Salty Seattle, did you get something out of that “explanation” that we all missed? I don’t get it at all, so any info would help. I also don’t see anything in that statement to say there will be less advocacy. Maybe you know more about this situation? Again, any insight you have would be helpful.
Hmmm…. it seems it’s time for a second or even a third bike club? Hey Chuck, lick your wounds then get busy, looks like you may have a few members still with you.
Dear Mr. Weiss,
I was a bit thrown off by the firing of Mr. Ayers or maybe I was surprised it took so long for a huge dumbass Board move where someone had to prove who has the biggest dick. Whatever the published reason one can be assured that most of it is bullshit and as Pres. and Chair of the Board you’re the biggest slinger of it. I’ve been a member for years and thank goodness for the ride organization and some of the “other” things Cascade does that I can still support, otherwise I might “Resign” my membership or maybe just wait to be fired. Why don’t you all sit back some day and settle differences and figure it all out with a beer or two as it was once done and get off your high political horse’ (ass). Cascade needs to get back to some grassroots stuff and get out from between the Mayors fat ass. Thanks to Cascade, regardless of bike lanes (some in crazy places) and other advocacy/legal issues, cyclists in Seattle have become targets (again) literally and figuratively of ridicule. Low profile is sometimes good, you can go faster and farther. Let’s have the “Club” fly low for awhile so the Board has a chance to remove its head from its ass. Get back to basics, no matter what your narrow peception from the inside is your not grassroots or on the ground on two wheels. I hate to be one to criticize without offering great solutions but sometimes it is necessary and quite honestly I provide solutions everyday in my job so I’m fatigued anyway. Just cut the crap and get some real people to run the show and not a bunch of weiners like yourself that really can’t ride a bike that well anyway. If you really want to start clean have the whole Board resign or fire each other and the whole staff…now there is a solution. Make a day of it! I hope other members wake up and smell the coffee soon. Best Wishes and Good Luck! Oh and please don’t respond with one of those weiner things like, “Thanks for your letter and concerns, blah, blah, blah…. ’cause that’ll be crap too and you know it.
This is a tragic outcome, but I don’t believe any of the talk about anyone trying to take over the club. I am a friend of Chuck; I am also a friend of a couple of members of the board. I served, at Chuck’s request, as a volunteer, nonboard member of a board nominating committee a few years ago. I reviewed the candidacies of some the board members who have now voted Chuck out. It seems unlikely to me, given what I learned about them at the time, that they had some secret motives. The club — and usually Chuck — asked them to serve; most didn’t volunteer or seek to serve.
Salient facts: Chuck personally recruited most members of the board. All board members are volunteers and club members themselves. The board says it had been working on major (but confidential, appropriately) management and leadership issues with Chuck for a long period of time. The board and Chuck could not see eye to eye, despite it all. The board let Chuck go.
Ouch. That’s a terribly sad outcome. As a friend and fan of Chuck, I want to see him land in a new position where he can keep kicking ass for a bike-friendly state.
But the most plausible explanation, unless you assume nefarious plots, seems like the one that the board is giving. And most of that explanation is a private personnel matter between the board and its former employee, colored to a modest degree by some differences of style (not substance) over political tactics.
I agree with the point about the importance of the ByLaws in this matter. And perhaps the club should go to a member-elected board. Or to a split ticket, with some members elected and others selected by the board. Like REI or Group Health, perhaps.
But the ByLaw changes weren’t exactly stealthy. Chuck was involved in making the changes. So, legally speaking, the board IS the CBC. And they appear to have followed all the best practices for overseeing a nonprofit ED.
I’m very sad about this whole episode, but I hope that members of the club will leave their pitchforks at home and, if they want more information, go to the member meeting.
And, Chuck, if you’re reading this, let’s get together for lunch to talk about your next career move. City council? Mayor? State secretary of transportation? Bike coordinator for the county?
Alan Durning
Change was due and, although not a comfortable chore, it was the duty of the board to carefully consider options and make Board decisions. Best wishes to Chuck in his next adventures.
BTW, I meant those as honest questions, not just back talk.
Just have to pipe in to say that the only reason I joined Cascade was do to people like Chuck and specifically David Hiller. I live in Tacoma and was looking for more than just group rides, I was looking for answers about the science behind what I was experiencing as a commuter. I got those answers and got the motivation to get involved locally on the advocacy side. Proud to say I’ve gotten some things fixed around here that only needed some phone calls and emails that involved a bit of research on my part. Research I was willing to do because I knew things were getting achieved in the Seattle area. I’ve gotten a local city to remark roads with shared lane markings correctly, gotten “share the road” signs replaced with “bikes may use full lane”, and gotten a ton of sewer grates repaired that were hazards to cyclists that ride to far right.
Cascade’s accomplishments and the battles they’ve taken on have been my inspiration and a major source for the science as well as examples of how things should be done. I hope the club isn’t about to go into a mode of not offending anyone… places like NYC have suddenly gone from looking to Seattle for inspiration to showing us what is possible.
Good Luck to Chuck, don’t you dare lose someone as valuable as David in whatever this is about and I hope to see the club grow in it’s advocacy for cyclists that riding the streets as a method of transportation.
The Club is lost and adrift and has been for a number of years now. It has become more of a PAC than a bicycling club. Members have left to join other cycling clubs because of that. Do not let the increase in numbers of members alone lead you to believe that the Club is succesful. The rate of grwoth of the Club is no more than the rate of grwth of Puget Sound population durring the same time.
The original intent of our “education” efforts was simply to maintain our non-profit status. It has turned into Frankenstien’s monster with 23 employees and has less and less to do with actual cycling and more and more to do with so called “cycling advocacy”, much of which the members do not agree with. The actual endorsements of political candidates is shameful. The rapid politicization of the Club will be its undoing. The end will not come gradually with plenty of time to avoid it, it will be catastrophic and quick as people line up and take sides. I guess then we can pick up the pieces and start over.
Does anyone have the guts to stand up and stop this madness?
I still don’t get exactly what the disagreement with Chuck’s approach was, or what will be different in the future. Does this mean the club will be a bit less aggressive? Or will it try to work more behind the scenes? My frustration with the board is that the club seemed to be having tremendous success, and Chuck seemed like a popular ED. If there is some debate about how the club should proceed, shouldn’t the members have been asked what they wanted?
I can’t make the meeting, so I hope someone will provide better answers in one of the upcoming newsletters.
I’m a member just to support advocacy work and am not connected with anyone in the club hierarchy. Needless to say I’m a bit nervous about how a new ED is going to improve on what has already been happening.
I think the comment by the board- “When tough tactics are called for, we will not shy away. But we also must build coalitions and back up our beliefs with reason and with dignity. Cascade Bicycle Club is its members, and we must always be mindful that when we speak, we represent each of you”- will be understood by most of those people, organizations, and businesses who have tried to partner with Cascade in the last several years.
I was recently at a city government meeting with other biking people and advocates. Cascade’s name came up as being non-helpful. Suddenly, almost everyone in the room recounted an instance of being treated very badly by someone with Cascade, even though we have almost the same agenda. It was kind of surreal. I myself had that same experience when I approached them to offer them something that would be of help to them. I never got to make the offer, because I was treated so poorly and realized I could not work with them. I was told that people had complained about that for years but that no one would do anything about it.
Promoting cycling is not something you can effectively do in a political vacuum. Is it “radical” when the American Auto. Assoc. advocates for better roads and more extensive privileges for drivers? Of course not. That’s how they protect and represent the interests of their members.
So why would anyone object to advocacy for laws that protect riders on the road, for better cycling infrastructure (one can argue about what that means, of course
and for other changes that will let us all spend more happy hours in the saddle?
I can only imagine it seeming surprising to folks who use their bikes as occasional distractions – not for whom cycling is a big part of their lives. If you love cycling why wouldn’t you want to be able to do it from your doorstep every day as well as on the odd weekend? And why wouldn’t you want everyone else to be able to get in on the fun, too?
Sure cycling is just one reason for voting for a candidate – I don’t always vote for the candidates that Cascade endorses and don’t expect other members to all the time, either. But I always appreciate knowing that there’s someone out there reminding candidates that Cascade members count.
And heck, our country faces major economic and health challenges right now. Cycling is a cheap form of transportation and recreation for the rider – and saves everyone else money, too (relative to driving which dumps costs – pollution, congestion, oil subsidies, etc. on everyone else – and yes I’m one of those subsidized drivers as well as a cyclist
. And cycling makes people healthier and happier (cyclists have the highest satisfaction of any mode of transportation according to a Univ. of Victoria study – which shouldn’t surprise any of us).
So by advocating for cycling Cascade helps make our region richer, healthier and happier. What’s not to like about that for a cyclist?
So I hope Alan is right and this is just a bump in the road
We all need Cascade to keep advocating for us out there…
if the change will bring back the Rope skippers chili cooked on coleman stoves and hot dogs served at the traditional location on the Chilly Hilly, then I’m all for it.
I’m a former ride leader, former member, former racer, an avid cyclist and miss being involved. No disrespect to Chuck, but I’m in agreement with earlier comments that support the board. I’ll get involved again. Those that write long diatribes, fine. But I’ll invest my energy with the idea that the recent polling of members that asked about the political advocacy of the club got the results that are synced with my feelings.
I’m an environmentalist. There are environmental groups in the Puget Sound region that effect change by getting relevant parties to the table and moving forward (Mts to Snd Grwy, CLC, WWRC) There are those unmentioned that are more about politics, social agendas and inefficiently fighting battles. CBC was leaning toward that negative, less effective genre. I quit. CBC no longer represented me. They worked against me in my overall view of the region. I could not pay dues. I could not support an organization moving toward eventual insignificance.
This move is bold and the board should expect criticism. But bold is what leaders do. Thank you Board.
I will send notes to the board personally. My experience is relevant. Many others have the same and have shared it with me.
Those that feel (as they have said above) the club should get tougher, that we are not East Coast enough, etc. You are wrong. Time is passing you by. We will, historically, refer to your comments and realize the stagnation your type creates.
It is more challenging to manage and represent a membership of 13.000 than of 3,000. Some felt ownership, and resent the expectation that as thousands joined, their motivations might be different and changing from the original. But there was no affection lost for suggesting “We represent the opinions of 13,000 people”. You wielded power you did not have, and now you are disconnected and disenchanted and sad to lose what you had no right to in the first place; the clout of thousands for your personal agenda.
Just because a person wants to ride to Portland, or around Mt Rainier, or to Vancouver in relative safety, does not mean they like the style and strategy recently employed by the advocacy portion of CBC. The board recognized this was a misconception. Strategies employed in recent years were designed to embolden this misperception. Other groups have done the same. The only criticism of Chuck I have is that he had a responsibility to protect CBC from this. Some would say he brought it. But I say, at least, he should have protected the club. The more powerful the clout, the more incentive to hijack it, the more need to be vigilant in protecting it’s value.
Thank you for the bold move board. Not that I expect to agree with all your moves, but for now I will rejoin, and watch closely for a time the actions of the board and the club. I know I am not alone.
Chuck did amazing things. But the advocacy arm of CBC lost contact with some of the members, at least one, this one. Me. And now I will rejoin the Cascade Bicycle Club for the reasons I did originally. To enjoy riding a bicycle.
Chuckie is done! Thank God! Hiller next? Hope so! Who invited these Northeasternasses to our party anyway? Go home! Leave us alone to decide or own future. Thanks but no thanks. The Red Sox suck.
I happen know Peter Morgan, and I knew he was a cyclist, but I had no idea of the extent to which he was involved in the CBC until I read this.
Here’s what I know about him. He’s a 100% stand up guy. He’s as unselfish and apolitical as a person can be. He doesn’t have a malicious bone in his body. He wouldn’t be involved in this if he didn’t believe it was the right thing for the club. As soon as I saw his name, I knew immediately this wasn’t about petty insider politics or a grab for power.
I had let my membership lapse. I will now renew my membership.
Nor can I stand political BS, as many of the respondents have alluded to in Mr. Weiss’s carefully constructed, artfully crafted and 100% politically correct format for a dump job. Do you think your cyclists are incapable of understanding the actual differences that have risen to the surface in the board’s interaction with the about-to be-unemployed and pending ex-officio. While my initial “blink” response to the official explanation was “my, how well written and diplomatic”, I soon got to “thou protesteth (or explaineth) too much” phase, always an indicator that the writer was not completely comfortable with his “explanation” and dealt with his discomfort by hanging on until his blaborrhea was exhausted.
Groups of citizens banding together, uniting behind a common cause, is always an exciting phase in any human endeavor, and surely characterized CBC at its inception. But the more successful and voluminous an organization becomes, like frinstance CBC, and the more influence it gains over its’ participants, the more likely it becomes an “institution” the goal of which is self perpetuation by a committee of vested individuals. The phenomena of Mr Ayers’s dismissal reeks of that possibility. If the board is truly “advisory” and represents the members, why not solicit their advice, then advise. Is it that you assume you know more than the plebiscites could possibly understand if given the actual facts and circumstances of your decision. I frankly doubt that Chuck Ayers had narcissistic aspirations of being the king of the two wheel road crowd. What’s going on here seems more likely to be a tyranny of the less powerful. “Et Tu, Brute.”
May the sandwich line on the next STP be two blocks long, matching the egos of the board members.
I live for cycling, it is my lifeblood. CBC was good for awhile, hope it survives the current cabal.
Wow Dennis Grace is a really sensitive guy, isn’t he. Glad I don’t know him. But then again I’m from Buffalo (only been here for 20 years) so maybe I should go home too.
All I know is that in 13 years CBC has gone from a quaint little club that did a couple of cool supported rides, and lots of daily rides. To a club that does a lot of cool, sold out, supported rides, and lots of daily rides, and also has a great deal of clout to make the Puget Sound region better for all cyclists.
I really don’t understand what makes people think that CBC isn’t about riding anymore. Take a look at the ride calendar, and look at, not just Chilly Hilly, STP, and RSVP but look at Flying wheels, Color Classic, Spawning Cycle, RAW, and high pass challenge. And look at the education programs that are all about riding and the next generation of riders. And look at bike to work month… used to be just a day.
Based on my reading of the By-laws, and with the current membership, it would take 700 member signatures to initiate a recall of board members. Maybe we could get board members who work, raise families, and ride, and who don’t have the time to micro-manage a club, and it’s executive director, who happen to be doing a great job. I’m just sayin.
Drama, drama. Get over it you whining babies. The board is doing good work, they are volunteers, and you didn’t even have the time to pay attention to the surveys they took to get the pulse of the club (realizing there was a problem, for years). Those shocked and dismayed are the exact reason this has happened. You took for granted the support of those who had not given it to you.
Like the person who is served divorce papers and says “I never saw it coming, I thought we were happy”. And all your friends saw it coming, years ago. All your relatives thought you were a dummy. Now you cry. Don’t blame the board. Blame yourselves. David Hiller, you listening? The damage you have done…..
I just love the name calling. What’s your name Former Ride Leader. Easy to spew when you aren’t willing to say who you are.
It’s a touchy subject to talk about the inner dealings within an organization. How do you publicly say thanks for everything but you’re fired?!
My take, is that the CBC has outgrown Chuck. Start ups need “get it done at all cost” kind of people managers and Chuck seemed to fit that bill. More mature organizations need structure and people who attract others -leaders who work with others collaboratively. It looks to me the CBC is making the tough but right decision required to take the organization to the next level.
Thanks to the board for your courage to be candid knowing full well of the consequential backlash. May you stay on the course with the wind at your back!
This is sad news. I would just like to thank Chuck for his years of service and leadership. 13 years is a long time to dedicate to an organization and I have no doubt that it’s a painful way for those 13 years to come to an end. While I recognize that we need advocacy and continued work to keep the roads safe for cyclists I agree with a few other people who are a bit put off with the club seeming to evolve more as a PAC than a cycling club. I don’t like being told to vote for a candidate because they happen to at least claim that they are going to work toward our goals for safer streets for cyclists. There are other issues that are also important that require careful consideration at election time. I think we risk creating a yet more divisive community and more polarization between drivers and cyclists when we remind the community of our political strength and influence.
I think the work should continue to keep us safe out there and while doing that we need to remember what the club is all about and put some fun back in the non-profit…non corporate culture.
All of these comments fall somewhere short of the truth and each is valuable as input for the Cascade members and the board. Believe me, the heavy handed tactics used by the Cascade Board members to oust Chuck Ayers were meant to demoralize and intimidate the staff, who in this economy, now fear for their jobs. Who wants to speak out when they could be next?
Peter Morgan and Chris Weiss’ disguise, as club members and avid cyclists, convinces no one that their “vision” for the club is any better or more progressive than the people who have been doing the hard work, and dedicate their time and energy to making the club work on a DAILY basis.
It’s a tragedy for Chuck and his family and that includes Cascade members because we are his family too. Pity that such little respect was paid to the membership and so much attention was given to one or two staffers who alienated the public at large.
This is meant to be a grassroots organization but the insensitivity of the board, their elitist big business boardroom tactics (forcing Chuck to resign in front of everyone is worthy of guerilla war tactics and frankly, in bad taste) has left everyone at Cascade reeling.
This is total crap. Unbelievable spin of deceit by this disingenuous board. Just when CBC is hitting its stride with its advocacy efforts the board cuts them off at the knees, horrible.
Wow I can’t believe we let egos take down the club. Chuck and the team he’s built have done more in the last 7 years than anyone could have imagined. Now our pathetic board goes and does this. Why because they don’t like the people Chuck hired. That team and Chuck direction deserve applauses, but instead are stabbed in the back by our useless board. Well I for one will not be donating a penny going forward. Sadly I gave over 10% of my income (pre -tax) this year to the club because I truly believe in a safer/better riding experience. I feel utterly betrayed! I truly hope karma catches up with each and everyone of you and pays it back 10x!!!!!!!
Wow, thank goodness for the internet and the ability to be a weasel and coward and be able to say things to people you would hardly ever say to their faces..then attack a whole region of the country and a baseball club..which is entirely non relevent to the subject at hand…have a nasty attitude, use insults, criticize …yeah and don’t do anything about any thing..just sit in front of your laptop and judge..and vocalize cause you can!! That is how I see it…I am a memeber of Cascade Bike Club, accidentally..I joined when I signed up for the STP, it has been a bonus to receive the newletter and be updated on issues that affect tbe cycling community and be included in volunteer requests..I don’t know much about the club nor any of the politics..I just know that I cannot stand cowards that write their point of view in such a childish, unproductive fashion. AND don’t identify themselves..I honestly had more respect for the local bicycle community before I read all of the comments. Respect yourselves and others and deal with issues as productive adults…pullleeeezzze
The club was founded largely as an advocacy organization, and this continues to be an extremely important part of the club’s work for a huge part of the club’s membership, including myself. Forming a PAC to strengthen work in this arena likely will make the club even more effective.
The work the club does in evaluating candidates and making endorsements based on their willingness for stand up for the rights of cyclists is also highly valuable, and has been conducted, and results disseminated, with the understanding that club endorsements are based solely on the issue of bicycling without regard to other issues. It cannot be expected that the club would make endorsements based on other issues.
Any concern expressed in the comments above that the club is not focusing enough on its rides program is, to my knowledge, unfounded. The rides program has grown steadily, and the club is in the process of hiring a rides program coordinator to promote and handle further growth.
That said, I echo the concern of some of the writers here that it is still unclear what differences of style or strategy are responsible for Chuck’s sacking. Perhaps that will become clear at the annual membership meeting on the 21st .
a few weeks ago, i went to the cbc pac meetin down by safeco field at the pyramid brew pub…in a discussion with chuck and some of the staff, i asked the simple question…”why doesn’t the club stop fighting the ballard community and just compromise and move the trail a block or two north and get the link done…?” the reaction was one of utter contempt by both chuck and david hiller…”we will never compromise…that is the last thing we will do…we have the mayor on our side and we are going to win this!”…or, words to that effect…see the story in this week’s puget sound biz journal for another example of david’s vitriol and the contempt it has engendered in the rest of the community…
i am a 20 yr bike commuter to downtown seattle and have seen many changes and improvements in the situation for all of us…we are making progress, but we run the risk of having it all “rolled back” if we can’t find a way to be more reasonable…i am not sure that our dear mayor is making many friends and will be re-elected…the next mayor may not be so supportive of our agenda…collaboration is not a bad thing… (maybe it is just something in the water here…we can’t seem to get anyone to compromise on any subject…)
I joined and will remain a member for two reasons
1. To join rides and
2. To support advocacy efforts.
However we should not leave it up to Cascade Bicycle Club by itself to advocate for us . I would hope that we all do something throughout the year to promote safe and healthy cycling beyond whatever happens thorough Cascade. There is strength in numbers.
I will continue my membership. The person holding the Exec. Director position is irrelevant to my membership.
Persons holding positions on the Board of Directors are irrelevant to my continuing membership. This change means really very little to me or my membership.
The path of the Cascade Bicycle Club is but one of the many roads down which we should travel to improve cycling options in the Northwest.
May all our rides be safe and fun!
Russell Poe
So I can only take Rollin’ Along’s comments as irony, it has to be, right? Spewing about people who don’t identify themselves… Or is Rollin’ your first name and Along your last name. BTW, that is my real name above my post.
Lorin, I did say “whining babies”, not mature, but I wrote it. I’m a member again now (in the mail) and have a right to voice my opinion. So although I acknolwedge the “whining babies” comment was immature and will change it to “Those with a feeling of entitlement to that which they do not own”, I suggest your disgust with my comment, but no a mention of all of the previous rude, mean and unfortunate examples that agree with your postion expalins more than at first glance. It’s not my comment you disagree with, it’s my positon. You have no problem with the rude comments that agree with you.
A rational person can read the comments and see there are 3 distinct types. Those angry and frustrated with the change. Those thrilled with the change. And those gentle people realizing the moment and thanking Chuck and the board for their work. I’d like to be a member of the 3rd group. But having seen CBC advocacy style (and personality) I am thrilled for the change.
If membership is split on how advocacy should be conducted, why would that anger you so much. Is there an expectation that “as long as we provide a good rides program, and you are a member, we get to use the clout of your numbers politically”? Some seem to be uncomfortable with that. Include me.
We live in interesting times.
I have been concerned cyclist are getting negative press in local news. the mayor is making enemies and it sounds like were seeking a new ED that isn’t as controversial. People need to drive cars and need to ride bikes using roads that have been in place for decades some developed with cars in mind, others horse and buggy. A long term strategy which works with all users of the roads is ideal. New roads with bike lanes should be protocol in the future, the challenge will be use of existing dated infrastructure. Many of these old roads have automobile users that need to navigate their neighborhoods and businesses as well. Increasing parking tolls downtown hurts everyone. It adds no value to our economy. We need improved infrastructure for cars and bikes and mass transit. Leave one out and you’ll only perpetuate the areas transportation problems for a growing population.
@Lorrin Smith-Bates
Lol I didn’t even realize it !!! I just wanted something catchy!!
real name ….ta da…Andrea Tucker
Note that free parking isn’t free – it’s mostly socialized parking. The value of parking spaces (most of them subsidized) in the US now is greater than the value of all the cars put together. That’s land that under a market system (you know like we Americans are supposed to like and all
could be put to more efficient use. Charging market rates for parking doesn’t hurt cities – it makes them work better by avoiding waste.
Don Shoup at UCLA has made extensive studies of how free parking hurts cities – here’s a short summary of some of his points:
http://parkingtoday.typepad.com/parking_blog/2010/09/don-shoup-strikes-back-.html
Raising parking rates downtown Seattle will only hurt business if it raises rates higher than the market will bear – otherwise it will increase turnover of parking – freeing up it for people willing to pay – resulting in more business, not less.
—-
And the Dutch have shown that you only get the substantial economic rewards that come from lots of people cycling when you’re willing to take “old roads” and use some of that space for bikes that you used to use for cars.
There’s no road forward that won’t result in “negative press” from the defenders of the unsustainable (we can’t keep using money borrowed from the Chinese to pay for 1/8 of the world’s petroleum to power our super wasteful transportation system) status quo.
Fixing things so we don’t go broke is going to upset some folks (especially the likes of British Petroleum etc) sooner or later. And the longer we wait the more unpleasant the reckoning.
(But it’s okay cause in the meantime BP and Exxon get to have some really short-term fiscal results – at least when their US-based rigs aren’t exploding
Bikes are efficient, healthy and fun. We need more Americans riding them ASAP. Cascade is an American bike club last time I checked. So let’s lead to get folks riding!
And do note that no one is talking about “giving up” cars. The Dutch have lots of cars. They just don’t use them for local trips as much as we do. We could save a ton of money and make Americans healthier simply by dialing back on how much we use cars and dialing up how much we ride. Families could save money by have one less car, etc.