Questions for Management

[John Nettles]

Hello, I have been a member for 45+ years (since the magazine was printed on newsprint).  I have several questions I would like an answer to if you would be so kind. 

1) Why does ACA not give ANY reasons for NOT selling?  As you know, the founders (the actual creators) of Bikecentennial / ACA, along with several other past "high level" members & employees including a past ACA Executive Director, are against the sell of the building at this time.  I am concerned the information the current ACA leadership is providing may not be all of the information available and that the members may not have the entire picture to vote accurately.  As you know, ACA leadership should endeavor to do what is best for its members and I would think the current leaders would want to address all concerns if the leadership is trying to be as transparent as reasonably possible. 

2a) Who is the second round of voting's independent third party administrator?  The first time it appeared to be a local, pro-cycling company that may not (not saying it is or isn't) be totally independent due to local connections/friendships, concerns, etc.  If the same company is the administrator, why not use a truly independent third party administrator that is not local? 

2b) Has or is anyone in the current or past leadership, in any way, connected to the vote's independent third party administrator?  If so, why do you not consider that a conflict of interest? I would think ACA would want to avoid even the appearance of a conflict, much less an actual one. 

3) Will the virtual Special Member Meeting be available for viewing later?  If not, why not, since many people may not be able to watch it in the middle of a work day for 2 continuous hours and the virtual meeting is for the membership so the membership can make an informed decision. 

4) What happens if the vote fails?  Maybe I am mistaken but I do not think ACA's Leadership has ever specifically mentioned what "Plan B" is. Seriously, what happens if the vote fails to pass?  Keep doing votes until it does properly pass?  Just close the doors and call it quits? Go until the money runs out?  Downsize to only items that pay for themselves?  What?  This is a very serious consideration for many and it has not been addressed in any specific way that I know. If I am incorrect, please provide a link or post the answer here. 

5) What programs, projects, etc. has ACA stopped entirely in order to save money so the building does not have to be sold?  Which have been reduced substantially? 

6) Has ACA Leadership in the past 5 years actually surveyed ex-members as to why they are no longer members?  Since a decline in membership is one of the reasons for the dire financial state ACA is in, I would think this would provide ACA Leadership valuable insight as to at least some of the causes of declining membership at ACA because surely not 100% of the drop in membership is solely due to "aging out". 

7) Why does ACA not engage other online forums regarding this topic, such as on BikeForums.net/Touring and other places?  Numerous people have serious concerns yet ACA has not commented on anything. 

I sincerely thank you in advance for providing answers to my questions.  John Nettles

[mt_cyclist]

Great questions, John. I would also love to see answers to these to have a better understanding of why the sale of the building is being pushed as the best choice. I'm also concerned as to why the first vote has cost the organization $30,000, and they expect the same cost to conduct the second vote? I can understand the cost to design and develop the voting process the first time around, but it seems odd that a second vote would have the same costs since it is using the same system that was already put in place.

[jamawani]

John -

Your questions are all valid; however, I think the well was poisoned long ago.
I believe that there was some sort of serious division within ACA
when recently-hired E.D. Scott Pankratz resigned and Jenn O'Dell took over.
As someone with little to no cycling background, she seemed a poor choice.
(Regardless of her marketing expertise.)

ACA's trajectory was consistently downward under O'Dell's team.
And nowhere has there been any attempt to analyze the errors.
In fact, the current board has offered nothing but praise for O'Dell.

I believe that there is both a generational and a political component at work in this conflict.
The only reason the current board offers for the decline was that membership was getting too old to ride.
A competent board would seek both to retain older members and branch out to younger people.
And not create a generational issue.

The political issue has been discussed at length.
Even though most touring cyclists tend to be on the liberal side of the political continuum,
many members who quit don't care to be part of a cycling organization that is highly politicized.
If the current leadership believes that social justice activism must be a part of every organization.
then they should clearly state so. And acknowledge the costs.

In essence, there has been a civil war taking place within Adventure Cycling,
with one party only finding out after Gettysburg.

[John Nettles]

John (Jamawani), I appreciate the information.  I just wish the Leadership would actually post a response since that would be the official answer, regardless of if I agree with it or not. 

I truly don't understand why Leadership appears to be hiding on such a pivotal decision.  This vote WILL literally change the future direction and I would like to hear from Leadership as to some of my (and many others') concerns and the lack of a response if somewhat glaring. 

For better or for worse, I am only hearing fairly damning reports from Save ACA and I really wish ACA would respond to some of these things so I can make a more informed decision. 

Best to you and thanks again for the information.

[BikeliciousBabe]

Leadership?  What leadership?

[John Nettles]

To ACA Leadership, it has been 3 business days since I posted my questions.  You have promoted this specific sub-forum to discuss the sale.  I posted reasonable questions asking for some clarity in case I am missing something (there are always 2+ sides to a situation).  Yet, I have heard nothing from ACA.  I am starting to feel ACA really does have something to hide and it is not just the Save the ACA side speaking.  I really would like to hear answers from both sides of the questions to more a more informed opinion yet for some reason ACA does not respond even though they encouraged members to come here and ask them.
I respectfully ask you again to answer the questions I, and anyone else, may have.
Tailwinds, John

[DW]

John and Everyone,

The concerns and questions you raise here are appropriate and, I believe, right on target.  The following is a summary of what I have learned and understand to be why ACA finds itself in its current situation.

Since 2021:

•   Two bad executive director (E.D.) hires in four years
•   Mismanagement of the budget & finances by the board and the E.D.s
•   High staff turnover
•   Covid: related + seasonal office closures
•   Many staff working remotely
•   Loss of member engagement
•   Steep drop in tour sales (and no more leadership training course)
•   A resulting downhill slide in membership from over 40,000 to around 17,000 today

Has anyone seen the documents and the November 21 letter to the board (outlining several violations of Montana law) the Save ACA Committee created, presenting its side to the proposed building sale and an actual plan to restore the organization to health?  Comprised of the four founders, four retired senior staff (three E.D.s and the CFO) and past board members, I'd say they know what they're talking about.

Their arguments, recommendations and plan for restoration to financial stability as presented in those documents are solid and hard to dispute.  But the board refuses to let the committee present its case to the membership.  Thus, a one-sided vote already and likely another in January, largely it seems from the cited email below to avoid any legal action.

I assume all here are members and have received the January 16 and earlier email from the board president and the new executive director regarding voting on the proposed sale.  They're insightful, self-serving and disturbing, in part dismissively referring to the Save ACA Committee as "a small group", "that group", "they" and "them".  And more.     

One helpful resource for understanding ACA's finances through the years is the ProPublica website, on which  you'll find ACA's 990 forms (that non-profits are required to file with the IRS) going back many years.  They provide a deep look into the organization's finances (income, expenses, assets, liabilities, etc.) and are quite informative as to when and where things went downhill and all the years ACA was thriving.

Likewise, a reading of the board members' bios on the website in regard to the key requisites for overseeing and managing a major non-profit membership organization is insightful.  And it isn't a love of cycling.

[John Nettles]

Thank you DW.  That is why I would like to hear from the Leadership of ACA.  To me, the statements from Save ACA are pretty damning but I believe there are always more than 1 side to the story.  That is why I posted my questions. 

So far, I have only heard very minor rebuttals (if that) from ACA and would like a more detailed response.  I voted No last time because I just "felt" it was a bad idea as I like the history of the building.  But feelings don't save organizations.  Good management does.  And while I am a more open to changing my vote this time, the longer ACA takes to respond, the much more likely I will stay a No, as it reflects, to me, bad management and leadership. 

Tailwinds, John

P.S. I have only heard about Save ACA from other sources, I have never heard anything from them and I have not opted out of the email sharing (I am willing to receive outside mail). 

[DW]

Thank you DW.  That is why I would like to hear from the Leadership of ACA.  To me, the statements from Save ACA are pretty damning but I believe there are always more than 1 side to the story.  That is why I posted my questions. 

So far, I have only heard very minor rebuttals (if that) from ACA and would like a more detailed response.  I voted No last time because I just "felt" it was a bad idea as I like the history of the building.  But feelings don't save organizations.  Good management does.  And while I am a more open to changing my vote this time, the longer ACA takes to respond, the much more likely I will stay a No, as it reflects, to me, bad management and leadership. 

Tailwinds, John

P.S. I have only heard about Save ACA from other sources, I have never heard anything from them and I have not opted out of the email sharing (I am willing to receive outside mail).

John,

Well, you may also want to send your concerns and questions directly in response to John and Andy's December 16 email.  I'm doing just that. 

In that communications, they stated only that they'll be holding "discussions" on the forum, not that anyone will necessarily reply.  Anyway, since the board has ignored the Save ACA Committee for so long (as I understand it), it's even easier to ignore individual members.  You've waited long enough. 

Another perusal of that email shows just how deeply self-serving it is, the message being "Vote our way, as it's the only way."  A two-hour virtual member "meeting" followed immediately by opening the vote, likely without an opportunity for the Save ACA Committee to present its case, only reinforces the board's one-sided stance.  I urge you - and all interested members - to get hold of the committee's documents and letter to the board so you'll have a much more complete picture and be empowered to cast informed votes. 

As is, the board is offering only to bank the $2.55M and continue providing soft program services and keep the doors open (while denuding ACA of its equity), not to provide skilled, knowledgeable management and oversight of the organization's finances and operations.  If it was unable to do so previously - and for so many years - how could it possibly do so today?  Read their bios. 

A one-time injection of money will not solve the organization's ills.  One doesn't apply an expensive band aid to a broken leg.  In short, the board has no plan.   

[John Nettles]

In short, the board has no plan.   

That is what I am most concerned with.  What happens specifically if it does pass and more importantly if it does not. 

I have added a poll to see if people are overall for or against but since I can't verify the integrity of the poll since it is managed by an very interested party, take it with a grain of salt.

John

[rafisher14]

Over the past few years, I have sent several emails to leadership voicing my concerns about ACA. I have suggested that in addition to reaching out to younger cyclists, they make an effort to market to the 50+ age group since this group has the time and money to do long-distance touring. I have spoken to many life-long members who have felt ignored by ACA management, certainly not reflected on the ACA web pages or articles in Adventure Cyclists. I even wrote to them about my concerns regarding the building sale and noted I would withhold donations to ACA.

I've never heard from ACA after these communications and never gotten the sense that leadership is listening to the life-long members. Their communications on the building sale and the subsequent vote have not given fair air time to the passionate members who oppose the sale. The ED/Board emails are dismissive of the Save ACA group, not even acknowledging that perhaps this group does have legitimate ideas on how to get ACA out of the current difficulties. Leadership could have reached out with an olive branch, but instead sent out a very off-putting email about the re-vote.

The huge drop in membership can't all be attributed to "ageing out" - I blame ACA leadership/board for poor management, forgetting the core mission, and for not doing more to nurture the relationship with their dedicated, long-time (and life) members.

[mt_cyclist]

I hope that everyone who sends an email to the board or Andy actually receives a response. I have not.

[DW]

I hope that everyone who sends an email to the board or Andy actually receives a response. I have not.

To All,

Prior to the November vote, I emailed the board president and the new E.D., voicing my concerns over the board's refusal to allow the Save ACA Committee to join the conversation and present its side - and plan - to the membership before voting was to begin.  I never heard back.

And today, in response to the December 16 email announcing a second vote, I sent the president and the E.D. a more detailed reply reiterating those same concerns, as well as requests to:

1) extend the deadline for potential new members to join (that date was also December 16!) by at least seven (7) days so they will be eligible to vote in January

2) extend all vote-related dates accordingly, following an announcement of the new dates

3) acknowledge the board's past mistakes, mismanagement, etc. so as to

4) work in partnership with the Save ACA Committee - not to continue ignoring it - and any other parties with a vested interest in ACA's future

5) amend the bylaws, restoring members' right to vote for board candidates, a right we once enjoyed and

6) send me the membership list as I had requested many weeks before

I don't anticipate a reply.  But if I do get one, I'll share it here.

[DW]

I hope that everyone who sends an email to the board or Andy actually receives a response. I have not.

I don't anticipate a reply.  But if I do get one, I'll share it here.

I received this email reply from an ACA staffer this evening.

"I wanted to let you know your email was received. Someone will get back to you on Monday."

[John Nettles]

I received this email reply from an ACA staffer this evening.

"I wanted to let you know your email was received. Someone will get back to you on Monday."

Hey, at least that is a start. 
Merry Christmas Everyone, John