CYCLES: Recent Comments

Comment on The Hadley Enounters

Frank — Sun, 02 Oct 2011 20:47:38 GMT

You should set up a site/link where people can contribute to your legal fees. I'd help out with the lawsuit pending(?) against Kuc.

Comment on League Membership: To Renew or Not to Renew

Ian Cooper — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:40:21 GMT

Thanks Eli. No need to apologize. After all, it's not your fault. I'm sure it annoys you as much as (or more than) it does me.

Bloody spammers!

Comment on League Membership: To Renew or Not to Renew

Eli — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 12:07:04 GMT

Ian: I'm really sorry about the spam. I have changed my comment policy so that all comments are moderated. You should not receive any more spam.

Comment on League Membership: To Renew or Not to Renew

Ian Cooper — Thu, 01 Sep 2011 09:43:04 GMT

Is there any way to stop all this spam? I'd like to stay subscribed to this post, but I'm getting something like two or three spam messages automatically delivered per week.

Comment on League Membership: To Renew or Not to Renew

Chuck Davis — Tue, 19 Jul 2011 13:28:57 GMT

The Reed Bates case points out the need for advocacy efforts to basically be from a bottom up direction and directed from a more local and consensus focused position

I followed Bates via Steve A's D-F-W blog and he did a very good job reporting the events

The main problem w/ LAB and Bates was that if resources were to be offered/expended that the LAB (in this case) might reasonably and rationally have some say in the matter, especially that in Bates was not a member of LAB or the Texas group

The ongoing efforts that the the Bike Colorado group is doing in the Black Hawk situation is a classic case of marshaling available resources efficiently/effectively that well might impact all Colorado cyclists

I am a retired lawyer with a small bike shoppe and have done some pro bono advocacy

The first rule of any representation is getting and staying on the same page w/ the client and not bending to outside forces who might desire to direct the litigation elsewhere

This is simply not accepting the work, if , as a lawyer, if you are not in control of the case

Comment on League Membership: To Renew or Not to Renew

Ryan — Mon, 06 Jun 2011 14:03:44 GMT

Eli:

I joined the LAB last year for the first time solely to support your candidacy. I will not be renewing my membership for the reasons explained in these letters.

You point out that the LAB no longer represents the rights and interests of vehicular cyclists and probably cannot be reformed from within. If this is the case, what do you think is the best course of action for cyclists like us? Are there any cycling advocacy organizations you recommend? If none exist, have you ever considered starting one?

-Ryan

Comment on A Candidate's Experience

khal spencer — Wed, 17 Nov 2010 00:22:03 GMT

The gun folks I have spoken to seem more open to accepting individuals speaking out. I was not a member of the Hawaii Rifle Association (HRA), but once wrote a long op-ed piece in the local newspaper defending 2nd Amendment rights and rhetorically disemboweling a local professional writer. The next week, somewhat to my surprise, I was made an honorary HRA member.

Comment on A Candidate's Experience

John Schubert — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:51:52 GMT

Hi Khal,

"even if there is not an overt plan to exclude those who disagree with the Board"

You're too kind. Of _course_ there is such an overt plan!

I think looking at the NRA's effectiveness is smart. One need not discuss whether one agrees with the NRA's mission to examine its effectivenss, procedures for getting on the board, how it handles internal dissent, and so on.
I have long used another example: the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA). Well over half the pilots in the country belong to AOPA, because the member benefits and advocacy are so compelling. AOPA's board of directors is elected by those members who show up at an annual meeting I've never bothered to attend.
When I was on the LAB board (1997-2001), other board members -- notably Earl Jones and later Chris Kegel -- joined voices with then-executive directors Jody Newman and Elissa Margolin in another anti-member issue: keeping members from any meaningful role in speaking for the organization. They used the remarkably stupid argument that I'd have more clout at a local meeting saying I was from a local organization than from the League.
I can just imagine the NRA telling would-be volunteers, "You'll have more clout saying you represent the Ridge Valley Gun Club than saying you represent the NRA." And then I burst out laughing.
All of this was part of LAB's desire to NOT mesh the national office's goals with the center of gravity of the members' roles (on inconvenient issues like road rights versus pathway pork).
These other organizations DO involve local members in advocacy. At the time I also looked at the
Wilderness Society, the Sierra Club and others. I think all of them wanted members to volunteer as local spokesmen for the organization's policies. At least one had a form on the web site to sign up to be a volunteer -- and this was in the very early days of the web.

John Schubert
Limeport.org

Comment on A Candidate's Experience

khal spencer — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 23:32:21 GMT

I keep mumbling that the League has to model itself on something like the National Rifle Association, which has great local and regional organizations and sponsored events and which has an almost maniacal dedication to protecting and expanding the rights of its members. Thus it draws in members because they see its value in an obvious way. 4 million members. We have 20 thousand. Good grief.

http://membership.nrahq.org/message.aspx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association

When I did a considerable Google search, it appears that the petition method to get on the NRA Board requires far fewer signatures than LAB.

Now I know my suggestion that we use the NRA as a model will probably offend some. Sorry...but reality is reality.When LAB has 4 million members, I'll shaddup.

The problems I have with internal Board vetting of candidates are substantial. Aside from the lack of organizational democracy, there is the lack of fresh air in the board room. I suspect that even if there is not an overt plan to exclude those who disagree with the Board, there is a just as worrisome tendency for the existing Board to conclude that the valuable traits to request in prospective Board members are the ones they see in the mirror, i.e., to be able to hustle money from government and industry, i.e., the bike biz and urban planners. So you get a self-perpetuating mission.

I don't claim those on the Board don't have valuable skills, but if being a cardboard cutout of the current board is the overriding driver, than those special interests currently in power will take precedence over individual cyclist's needs indefinitely.

There has to be some balance, right?

Comment on A Candidate's Experience

John Schubert — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 22:39:07 GMT

Ross, just a quick note: In 1992, the League board was all-elected. While there were Politburo-like scandals from time to time in those previous decades, I think the current situation is a different order of scandal. There is an Animal Farm-like duplicitous arrogance in the board's insisting that what they do now is some sort of legitimate election.
Another distinction I would make is one of mission. For all its imperfections and failings, the League of 1992 was really trying to represent cyclists' best interests; it had cycling events that attracted thousands of people; it worked hard to involve all members in advocacy; it had dozens of programs to involve and benefit members. The League of today is suspicious of member involvement (unless they're "approved" members), has no events to bring members together, and doesn't have the programs it used to have. It has been reborn as "send us money so we can lobby for pork -- and we send you a magazine for your coffee table." The education program survives as an unwanted vestige, in conflict with the lobbying for pork.
I'm not defending whatever was said to you in 1992, but just saying that, taken as a whole, the League was FAR more open to members then than it is today.