Hi All,
I'm a relative newcomer to ACA (member for 10 or 15 years), but an old-timer cycle tourist (read- Baby Boomer!) and all around daily rider.
Certainly a lot is at stake and feelings are running high about the potential sale of ACA HQ. Lots of good and important points are being made here. Perhaps mistakes have been made, and could be rectified, but let's not sink the ship with the weight of accusations. At the meeting, let's remember that no one has all the answers or a perfect plan.
My thoughts:
Per Chris Thomas's very good points, PLEASE don't litigate the ACA into oblivion over spilt milk and sour grapes. Things change, and we need to change and adapt to stay relevant. Unlike Chris though, I'm not ready to bow out, whichever way the vote goes.
Keep the building and rent out unused space, per others' recommendations (management company, re-mortgage for upgrades, etc.).
If we really want to expand the demographic that ACA reaches (I do) beyond what it has been (hey boomers!), and include folks of more different economies and circumstances (as well as offering experiences that are accessible to them), we need to hire from those demographics, and accommodate them to work from where they are. Allowing remote work facilitates that. Requiring all or most staff to work in Missoula is a recipe for a homogeneous work force. Hold regular in person team building gatherings in rotating locations to bring the staff together. It's perhaps not ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world (duh).
To the folks who lament the "politicization" of ACA, and/or the "editorial slant" of the magazine, I would challenge you to a thought exercise: Is the status quo in the world of long distance bike touring really apolitical? Even though it has always been and still is a space available to, and occupied almost exclusively by, a very narrow demographic? And, is it not a perpetuation of the status quo to provide experiences for, and include stories and images of, folks only from that narrow demographic? I know, it's a sticky wicket, and politics is pervading everything these days. All I'm saying is that avoiding stories that tell the truth of others' experiences, or of challenging circumstances, is also political, by omission. Let's keep opening the door. Some may see it as an exit, others as an entry.
"Save ACA" has definitely laid out way more of a plan for moving forward than the vague generalities I see in the emails from the ED. And, I don't agree with some of that plan. Purging the board because you don't agree with them seems vindictive and unproductive. As I said earlier, forcing staff to relocate to Missoula is out of touch. We're not going back to the days of a bunch of happy hippies making fun happen for people like them. Let's move forward with constructive input and build bridges, not burn them.
Things I do agree with in the Save ACA plan: reduce membership dues, expand the magazine back to its fullness, flatten the salaries of paid staff to bring them within our means.
I do have to acknowledge that I voted "For" the sale in the first vote, because I really only had one side of the story. It feels at least a little disingenuous that the current leadership argued so ardently for the sale, and gave no space for any dissenting view. The timing of the meeting tomorrow is also unfortunate in that many people who work will not be able to attend. And I'm willing to forgive and move forward in cooperation.
Thanks for the space to add my two cents!
Duncan
