Hello,
Life member here. Because of SaveACA, I've decided to leave the organization and no longer contribute to it. I'm a litigator who handled multiple cases just like this, including in the 501c3 space. They are all pretty much the same, and they all turn out badly.
SaveACA has not ruled out litigation and signs point towards it
The fact that you haven't stated anywhere that you'll forgo litigation over this sale is disturbing in the extreme.
That failure, coupled with the fact that you're utilizing various procedural hoops - - almost certainly under the direction of litigation counsel - - further indicates that litigation is a possibility.
There is nothing that wastes corporate assets faster than litigation, especially in the NFP space. And there is nothing more corrosive to the membership.
You might think you're doing something important and noble but my experience with these disputes is exactly the opposite.
The Bones
The "bones" of these disputes are the same: old guard versus new guard, and an asset in dispute. Every single one of these cases that I've personally litigated has had those three traits. Recalling the heyday, the old guard blames the new guard. For its part, the new guard points to changed circumstances and notes how the old guard missed obvious pivot points that would have kept the organization current and at the forefront of the industry or field.
A case study that comes to mind is that of Kodak. They invented digital photography, but their old guard failed to make the transition even though they saw and invented the existential threat. Why? Because the old way was comfortable and profitable. Change is hard especially for those emotionally attached to the way an organization was. But nothing will prevent the arrival of a tipping point, and it sounds like ACA has passed that point.
The analog here is that ACA invented gravel riding but failed to monetize it. Even on the flagship GDMBR, riders go to Bikepacking.com, which has been growing by leaps and bounds. That could have been ACA, but the old guard missed the tipping point.
Stated simply, there's plenty of blame to go around. Your email to the membership fails to acknowledge any of this. It smacks of finger-pointing, not problem solving.
Few Have Ever Joined ACA or Upgraded Because of the Building
People join because they want to be part of an organization that advances something that is important to them. That advancement is dependent upon people, not on buildings. The nimblest organizations in today's work and advocacy environment are not heavily weighted by oversized physical structures.
Similarly, the nimblest organizations don't tout what their employment figures were back in the good ol' days, as you did. Instead, they identify the number that needed to do the work today and align that with the available resources. The NFP sector is slower on this front but is not immune to this law of gravity.
The law firm from which I retired is a good example of being nimble and adjusting to the current realities. The firm is over 100 years old. In the good ol' days we had 150 lawyers in little Rochester, NY. We occupied the top five floors of class A office space. The law business changed over thirty years, and the office shrank to half that number. Did we hold on to the space because we had been there a long time and liked it? Of course not! We moved to space that fit our size and that better met (much better) the actual needs of practicing lawyers, staff and clients. The move made us more profitable, as well. Some of the old guard opposed the move, emotionally referencing the old days. But for the well-being of the young lawyers and staff that are continuing the practice, most of us were able to separate ourselves from our emotions.
Most ACA members have probably never been to the building. I was there for a few hours and enjoyed it, but it was hardly lifechanging and it had nothing to do with my decision to become a life member. I just liked the idea of supporting something I appreciated.
You Largely Ignore Addressing How the Environment Has Changed
Riders can now go anywhere in the world using Garmin, RidewithGPS and Komoot, to mention just a few. The environment has radically changed in the last decade, having nothing to do with the building or the new guard. The shift from paper maps to gpx. Files is akin to the shift from film to digital. That fact is ignored in your materials. You opt instead to insult the new guard with "inside baseball" about who they hired and claiming they have no plan for anything. Regular members like me don't know and don't really care about inside baseball. I would have rejoined and donated more regardless of who was the executive director or whether the building was owned or sold. Instead, it sounds like a tempest in a teapot in Bozeman. Or is it Missoula? Either way, such inside baseball doesn't much matter to regular members.
It's Hard to Let Go
I had a case in the 501c3 space. It was for the historical society of my city. They had a grand old mansion where they stacked all sorts of items. They couldn't afford it, and its maintenance was draining the coffers to the point of insolvency. The old guard did not want to give up their clubhouse, a place where they spent countless happy hours when they were young. But the house was losing value and draining the coffers. The antique collection, though meaningful to them individually, was not valued by the broader membership, the community, or marketplace. When the new guard attempted to "right the ship," the old guard put their interests ahead of the organization. They hired lawyers to challenge at every turn. They frayed friendships and irreparably harmed the "good will" that they had been part of building. It was a total shame. What happened? The house was sold and brought back to its former glory. The collection was culled and is now on rotating display at our busy main public library. The organization now focuses on the mission, not the building.
If you want to get back on the board, then run. If you want to be the new Executive Director, then apply. If you have lots of great ideas (which it sounds like you do), then continue to make them available, and be ready to do the work. If it's so important, you'll do so as a volunteer.
I can imagine the frayed friendships and barely contained anger that is taking place in and around ACA. The old guard feeling that their life's work is diminished, and believing they have the insight to change it. While the new guard is faced with certain realities, while feeling attacked by the old guard.
For me, it'll be easy to let go. Why? Because the building and its collection doesn't matter to me one whit. I enjoyed being a member but have no interest in being in relation with anyone who has lawyered up for control of an organization about something as simple and joyous as riding a bicycle.
Sincerely,
Chris Thomas
