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
