My current one no longer fits, it's way too big... Probably a medium race cut...  Thanks - GP

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

All,

  I made a few tweaks for tomorrow's route which I removed a crosswalk and made our break at the top of Torrey Park.  Please download the following route for tomorrow:

https://ridewithgps.com/routes/40117663

  My apologies for the inconveniences.

R/
Ken

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

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

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

If only we were as enlightened here. We can all contribute to this being brought up to our local officials by getting active in supporting efforts to make our communities safer by enhancing alternative options to driving which encourage cycling.

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

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

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

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

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

— Ken

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

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