A good perspective, well-stated. The advocacy on both sides is ham fisted, comically so. It leads me, a lawyer who has litigated and advised on 501c3 disputes through a 30-year career, to believe that there are two entrenched camps with radically diverging opinions. One is the BOD/ED and the other is the old guard group. Including their adherents, each probably numbers fewer than 100 people in a membership of 18,000. Most of the rest of the membership likely hasn't thought about the building or its collection until this kerfuffle.
I have zero knowledge of the personalities on either side but based on experience, I know them all well: strong-willed people who believe that only they have the cure and that the other side just doesn't understand.
This probably won't end well for the ACA because it is an organization which relies on membership. Acrimony over governance almost always leads to the erosion of membership. In this case, it will accelerate the erosion that has been underway for some years, compounded by the pandemic, the shift to MTB/gravel, the rise of Bikepacking.com, and the free availability of routes via Komoot, RidewithGPS and others.
In my experience handling these matters, clubhouse-type buildings are almost always a flashpoint between old guard and new guard. The way I explained it to my clients or the judge, such clubhouses are akin to the family home where I raised my family, had countless holidays, recognized achievements and mourned the loss of loved ones: we form tight emotional bonds to the physical space and what it represents. Thus, even after we no longer need, or can care for, or can afford the family house with 3000 s/f, five bedrooms, four baths, stuffed to the rafters with the memories of lifetime, still, it is EXTREMELY hard to let go.
The elderly homeowner comes up with many reasons against selling, while their children see that keeping the family home just doesn't make sense. This is particularly true when there are money issues that militate against staying in the old homestead.
And so it is here.
The ACA is now in that push-pull that many of us have gone through with our parents and our children may go through with us. The process can be quick and easy, with a move to an apartment and the resultant reduction of expenses, and the release of equity for rent and quality of life.
Or it can be long, hard and painful, holding out until the shutters fall off and the roof leaks. Some people prefer it that way, especially elders who cannot fathom change.
.
Given the apparent lawyering-up, I think we are looking at the latter: a long, expensive and alienating struggle over a building that is tied to the past. Acrimony around such decisions splits families and is splitting the membership. It bodes poorly for the attraction of new members and the release of equity to advance the mission as it exists in the current environment.
I know I won't donate a dime as long as there's any chance it's going to lawyers.
Are these parties mature enough to step back from the brink and talk, as you so properly suggest? I don't know but I sure hope so. Is there a universe where it makes sense to hold onto the building? Possibly, but only with an unlikely surge in membership income, reduction of its carry-costs and/or a big and ongoing donation.
I'd be willing to make an actual wager that in one month after the results of the vote are announced, none of this will have happened. More likely is further entrenchment by the old guard, possibly to include litigation, and resignations by the current BOD and/or ED. After all, who in their right minds wants to deal with such acrimony on the board of an NFP? Neither outcome is good for the ACA. I hope I'm wrong but I've seen it happen in four other cases with similar facts.
CDT
