In order to ensure that your club remains strong, Cascade’s Board of Directors is in the process of revising the club’s bylaws. The bylaws were written for a much smaller club in an age before the internet; procedures that worked then, like bringing the membership together in a room to conduct club business, no longer make sense.
The board is proposing bylaw revisions in three areas:
1) The process for director recall;
2) The terms of board-appointed interim directors; and
3) The quorum required for the board to conduct club business.
You can read the full text of the proposed changes here. Members will be asked to vote on these proposed changes during the October 2011 election; they will appear collectively on the ballot along with this year’s candidates for the board of directors. Ratifying the proposed changes will require a two-thirds majority vote.
Hi:
I briefly read the overview of the proposed changes to the bylaws. I see nothing pertaining to how elections are held and members are kept informed and engaged.
Even once the old Board was forced to resign and new elections were scheduled, rescued Cascade management resisted holding new elections in a way that would even pass muster in a third-world nation. The candidate forum was held the evening mail-in ballots were due.
The internet and Cascade’s own forums were not used to facilitate dialog between members and candidates, even after much cajoling to do so. Two candidates names were left out of the Courier voter guide. As such, only 400 people even bothered to vote. Cascade management was handed a chance for reform and democratic principles and turned away once their own asses were secured. This was a real eye-opener.
It’s sometimes said, “don’t attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence”. I suppose I’m not OK with either.
As I’ve said numerous times on Cascade forums, this internet thing seems to be catching on, and should be used effectively and in a timely manner to engage and inform as many members as possible.
Holding a candidate forum on the evening ballots are due is ludicrous. This sort of thing needs to be corrected going forward. Candidates need to avail themselves to reasonable questions by membership on open forums — on the web and in person. Cascade needs aggressively pursue getting the word out about these forums in a timely and competent fashion, so people have an opportunity to get informed and participate in a meaningful way.
Past experience has shown these issues need to be addressed in the bylaws. I’m emailing this to the Board.
Agree with Eric. Use the Cascade Boards- not the night before on a mail in ballot- that’s incredibly unfair to the candidates and the members.
Did anyone notice how much attention this election had compared to the sleepers in the past? Cascade needs to be a member driven club- that cannot happen unless the board votes an election process that is member friendly- unless of course the board doesn’t members to know or vote- in which case, remember what happened to the last board.
I think the statement that “[t]he bylaws were written for a much smaller club in an age before the internet; procedures that worked then, like bringing the membership together in a room to conduct club business, no longer make sense” needs further explanation. In the interest of helping the CBC keep current, it seems worth pointing out that in recent and ongoing Middle East uprisings – and in San Francisco a couple of weeks ago – people were denied internet access precisely because the government didn’t want people using Twitter, FB, etc. to facilitate face-to-face gatherings. It might not “make sense” for folks who’d prefer to avoid accountability and transparency to allow members to meet with them in person, but it appears to make a lot of sense for members to demand that ability.
I wonder how many people read this blog. I suspect it’s just a handful of us. Hello? Anybody home? It’s like yelling into a barrel. We have more action on our Bike Tawk Facebook page. Will Cascade be relevant in the future? Does it want to engage in dialog with membership or just be a “rides” organization? Does it want to be a hub for all things bicycle? Maybe not.
I once thought it was at the center of the Seattle bicycle explosion — a driving force. I may have misperceived. It’s possible the bicycle explosion is just a thing whose time has come. Cascade may actually be behind the curve and late to the party.
Hey Eric – good points regarding the Cascade Board. I read this blog and the CBC forums but have also wondered how many others do. The forums seem to be a place for new riders to ask for directions, or for the same 5 or 6 people to argue about lane positioning while riding. The blog is a good way for MJ Kelly to get the word out but I rarely see any comments. Your tubulocity blog (which I am no doubt misspelling) is a more interesting resource for all things cycling in the area.
This is good discussion. The by-laws review committee is reading this thread and will discuss each of these points in our next by-laws committee meeting. If you need a direct response, feel free to email us individually or as a board. You can find our email addresses by following the “Cascade’s Board of Directors” link at the of this post.
We have board meetings that are in the calendar and open to members.
Personally if any club member wants to talk, I am more than happy to meet in person, talk on the phone, or discuss over email.
Having a blog and using it in a way that cultivates community-building are two different things. You may own a Stratavarius or a Stratocaster, but it doesn’t mean you make music. You have to spend time developing your blog chops and engaging people. First step is you have to want to do it. I’m not optimistic about Cascade doing that. They either don’t get it or want to only deal in managed “press release” style communications.
Thank you Michael Snyder for reaching out in public to membership at large. If discussions can be public, as opposed to one-on-one, it may encourage community discussion. Would that be a good thing?
I might also mention that discussing each of these concerns at your next meeting may not do much to allow changes to be made prior to the October election. The members have been backed into making an up or down vote on these proposed amendments, as the deadline for announcing any changes (60-days prior to the vote) has passed.
Thus, by not submitting these proposals earlier, the committee has not permitted any time for revisions to these proposals to be submitted in time. To be clear, I’ve been relatively pleased with the comments that board members have made here and on the message boards, and applaud you for your willingness to engage and being welcoming of comments and feedback. I simply wish that we’d had an opportunity to review these proposals in time to really affect change.
The Board should well know that the vast majority of the many thousands of club members are generally apathetic in voting for anything, however it is the truly “concerned active members” (the ones who do care about the club) that will make a real “stink” if their ideas and sense of correctness and fairness are ignored. They are the ones who are the heart of the organization and who participate and make the club what it is, contrary to the many who are just names on a database. It is hoped that the Board does not play the numbers game, but truly listens to those who are concerned active members.