top of page

Forum Comments

Cycling BC Fee Increase vote
In General Banter
mfarnham
Dec 06, 2023
Hi Rolf, I'm not sure I'm understanding the Oasis/IMBA insurance plan. $15 per member would add up to $6000 (@400 members) for Tripleshot to be insured, but at that point the members themselves would have zero insurance--just the club would be insured. Is that correct? Is that General Liability for the club? Because for 2024 that will run Tripleshot $300 with Cycling BC ($0.75 per member, compared with $15 per member with Oasis/IMBA).  And the "no timed events" thing would presumably rule out any Tripleshot-hosted VCL races and the Cross Fondo, which I'm guessing raises Tripleshot over $30,000 a year. That shortfall would have to be made up somewhere (An increase in member fees by $75/member?  A scaled back youth program or a youth program just for the rich?).  Setting timed events aside, we'd probably want to require members to carry at least some liability insurance, so with basic $30 Pedal Power ($1m liability only) plus Oasis/IMBA club insurance each member would be in $45 for insurance with no injury coverage. And with no injury coverage, people might sometimes need to sue clubmates to get their post-crash rehab expenses covered.  That could become an ugly, but necessary, piece of the group riding landscape.  If I read Christine's email correctly, the bottom line is that Oasis/IMBA isn’t offering cyclists good-value insurance.  They’re just offering cycling clubs insurance which appears to be way more expensive than what Cycling BC offers, and, unlike Cycling BC, IMBA is letting those clubs let their members ride uninsured or underinsured. I’d argue that’s not a community-minded approach because insurance coverage doesn’t just protect you—it protects the most important person on any ride: everyone else.  A fairer comparison with what Cycling BC offers would be to look at Pedal Power with liability and enhanced injury coverage (https://secure.pedalpowerinsurance.ca/purchase/index.php?pla=1&Province=CA). For my age, that runs $121/year if I don’t engage in competition.  And it doesn’t come with the additional contribution to the sport that my $98 Cycling BC membership buys me. I’m very sympathetic to the calls for more diversity in cycling and the role that fees might play in that.  Our club constitution clearly states that one of the reasons Tripleshot was created is to engage with local, provincial and national sport organizations to improve cycling. It’s natural to think first about “what’s good for us?” at Tripleshot.  But it’s also important to look at things through the lens of our constitution.  “What’s good for cycling? Because that’s good for Tripleshot.”  If people want to promote greater diversity in cycling, then why not take this up as a careful and concerted club initiative?  I’m sure that Tripleshot could afford to subsidize some memberships for some prospective new members if fees are actually what’s limiting access. And such a Tripleshot initiative would probably uncover important non-financial barriers to diversity in cycling. Whatever was learned, Tripleshot could pass its lessons of what works and what doesn't onto cycling much more effectively as a member of Cycling BC, than as a free-lancing club with no network.  I know Cycling BC would want to hear what Tripleshot had learned from such an initiative. And I know our founders would be glad to hear we did something not just for us but for the sport and the broader cycling community. Best, Martin
Cycling BC Fee Increase vote
In General Banter
mfarnham
Dec 03, 2023
Hi All,   In response to some of the comments...   To Rolf’s point, there’s no doubt that the value-for-money of a Tripleshot membership will seem greater than for a Cycling BC membership even at multiples of the current $30 TSC cost.  But it’s an apples-to-hand-grenades comparison.  In one case you’re mostly buying insurance (yawn!) and in the other case you’re mostly buying rides with your friends (yay!). But you can’t do the latter without the former.  If Tripleshot weren’t affiliated with CBC, then Tripleshot would have to supply the insurance as part of its membership and charge a lot more for membership.  Or they’d have to force you to buy it from someone else and the insurance would almost certainly either provide substantially less coverage or come at a higher price than what your CBC membership buys you (risk pooling lowering insurance costs is a real thing!).  If Tripleshot riders were uninsured or underinsured, then Tripleshot Directors and Officers insurance would probably become much more expensive and lawsuits between members could become a more regular part of the ride landscape.  Races, the Women’s Clinic, and other events that we’ve held historically could also become much more expensive to insure.  Of course, I wouldn’t begrudge a Tripleshot board member looking into alternative arrangements, but I’d urge them to take any broader implications into account carefully.  There’s also a question of how much coverage people want.  Do you want to be protected when riding home from a club ride, or just on the ride?  Different members will reasonably have different answers to that question.  CBC has tried to get insurance that allows members to choose their level of coverage, but insurance companies won’t offer those mixed contracts.  CBC could go with lower coverage for everyone (we honestly struggle with this point on the board), but that raises its own accessibility issues.  Maybe some riders can afford $100 a year for insurance but they can’t afford $70 for cheaper insurance plus the risk of thousands of dollars of uninsured physical therapy expenses in the event of a crash.   Regarding Todd’s email which Dave posted:    Todd’s claim that “[sic] there were a couple of us that voiced serious concerns for this and has resulted in an EGM” is problematic on two counts.  1) The calling of an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) is a standard annual requirement of CBC’s bylaws and would never be triggered by an argument at the board level. It happens every year whether the board is unanimous on fees recommendations or not.  2) Given that the board vote was 7-1 (it would have been 8-1 if I had been able to attend) either Todd is exaggerating the level of dissent, or he’s violating his Non-Disclosure Agreement by relaying information from in camera discussions.  It's also worth pointing out that Todd’s social media campaign against the fee increase was made without informing the board of his intent to do so, and that he made social media posts using the Cycling BC logo and advertising his status as a Board member while campaigning against the Board’s recommended fee increases.  These are all ethically uncool things for a board member of any organization to do.             I honestly don’t understand why Todd did this.  It’s a small fee increase that doesn’t even keep up with inflation (I think our insurance costs are rising on the order of 10% next year while the typical membership fee is rising by 5.5% under the proposal). His email is short on specifics and logic (How do we put more resources into what he wants without raising more revenues?  How is it fair or sensible to charge less to the riders who use CBC services the most?).  I do wish he’d clearly explained his agenda to the Board before launching this attack on the whole organization. Now, instead of talking about important concerns like those raised by Lister and others, we’re left trying to decipher what it is that a relatively small but very loud constituency wants and how to meet their demands without endangering our grants and sponsorships, or without taking so many resources from other member-constituencies that they go on strike too.  It’s all made worse by a small handful of members who have been highly abusive—especially toward Erin who has put in incredible hours and energy of late.             Both Todd and Dave are confused about how to calculate “administrative costs” of a not-for-profit. Both are assuming that all labour is “administration”.  But most staff at CBC are providing services, and only some are doing administrative work (primarily the CEO).  Also, things like rent and office services should be counted as administration, and Todd and Dave seem to leave these things out.              Dave’s claim--that, because 60% of CBCs revenue goes “to pay people”, spending priorities are out of whack--is flawed.  First, the labour share of the Canadian economy (the percentage of income that is paid to labour as opposed to other means of production) is around 65%, so there’s nothing inherently out of whack about the number 60%.  Second, payments to people are not inherently less valuable than payments for rent or staplers. Third and most importantly, staff providing services (e.g., helping with an insurance claim or license upgrade, organizing coach training, or facilitating events) should not be counted as "administration".  The CBC staff labour costs to revenue ratio was 40% for 2023 and is budgeted at 37% for 2024. Dave might get to 60% by adding in things like payments to HopOn coaches and race officials (who are not regular staff).  We can’t fairly expect people to provide these services for free, and these payments to labour are also for services to the cycling community so shouldn’t be counted as administrative costs.  Sure, count Erin’s salary as administrative (i.e., not supplying services directly), but even there I have to say that during Covid Erin spent a lot of time on Zoom and the phone with me supplying valuable services to Tripleshot members in the form of advice on how to thread various regulatory needles and get our rides and youth workouts up and running again ASAP. Dave has referred to “contractors” as an example of wasteful spending and I presume he’s thinking largely about HopOn.  This is a program financed through a mix of earmarked government grants, sponsorship, and donations that teaches kids bike skills in schools around the province.  It doesn’t make economic sense to fly staff members around the province to run these programs directly, so CBC pays local coaches to do so on a contract basis.  I agree with Lister’s point that HopOn is not being used nearly to its potential to create a pipeline of young riders into youth cycling programs.  But the money that goes to HopOn contractors to provide coaching to kids 1) is not coming from your membership fees; and 2) is not transferrable to give discounts to event organizers or do other non-HopOn things to support racing.  These are earmarked funds which go away if we don’t run HopOn. I’m happy to vote proxy for people at the EGM if they’d like, though I’d slightly prefer if you found someone else attending who could vote for you (I’ll be juggling a lot going into the meeting).  Each attending member can bring up to 10 proxy votes to the meeting.  Information about how to vote proxy (you need to organize your vote a week advance of the meeting) can be found here:  https://cyclingbc.net/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Dec-18-2023-EGM-Proxy-Form.pdf  You need to submit your intent to vote proxy by Dec 11 at 7pm.  The EGM is Dec 18. Cycling BC currently has a membership of around 6200 people.  Several dozen highly motivated members are currently trying to drive the whole organization. Their views are not representative of what the average CBC member wants.  As a board member trying to act in the interest of the whole organization (not just lower mainland racers and not just Tripleshot members), my first wish would be that all members read the materials put out by CBC (and others) and turn up to vote.  Given that’s not a realistic wish, my second wish is that lots of Tripleshot members turn up and participate in the conversation.   Best, Martin
3
4
Barely used trunk/hatchback bike rack for sale
In Tripleshot Classifieds

mfarnham

More actions
bottom of page