Hi DW,
Yes Save ACA HQ keep saying to think of it as a pause... I guess I don't get that. From the financials of the situation, we can't pause more than a few months. The time required to find a buyer is a few months. What more can we learn about the sale or about ACA's future? It is true that a plan for ACA in the sense of a MicroSoft Project file hasn't been shown. Honestly, I wouldn't believe it if I saw it. Re the sale, the key issue to me at least is the leaseback and that does seem to be set up. Some people have asked about future real estate values and I guess that they are rising in Missoula, but recession is also a possibility. And to have the sale fall through makes it harder to put it back on the market. OK not a lot harder. Depends on your selling agent. What does it mean "a fair review of the sale?"
I dunno... just scratching my head on the "pause" concept.
Bellantoni,
Good questions all. But don't scratch too hard. Your helmet may not fit!
The bottom line in all this right now is seven months of endless obstruction, stonewalling, gamesmanship, propagandizing, falsehoods, deaf ears, one-sidededness, claim of a "victory" in December, shutting out all other voices (see the previous), provision of useless membership lists (at least twice) and violations of several Montana laws - all perpetrated by ACA.
Have you ever seen a ballot spouting a candidate's position? I'd say that ACA's argument took up
only 99.9% of both the paper and e-ballots. That
has to be illegal somewhere. The same might also be said for ACA mailing paper ballots to everyone, most especially those members, like me, who did
not request it. Mine was dated December 30, 2025. I received it on January 5 - eight days
before voting was to begin and time enough for members to vote before having an opportunity to hear opposing views at the member meeting on January 13. Another unethical attempt on ACA's part to slant the vote to its one-sided position.
That's not to mention the complete failure of the E.D. and board chair to address questions and comments on this and another forum themselves. That alone does not engender trust. Moreover, appointing members to the board because they "show enthusiasm" does not make for good governance.
If ACA had conducted itself ethically, in good faith and according to the law from the outset, then none of this likely would ever have occurred.
In summary, the board's objective from the get-go was to ram its position down the throats of the members as the
only one to consider. That's just
one of the violations of Montana law. To paraphrase the old saying, "If ACA thinks its view, its voice is the
only one that matters, then it should stick a collective finger in a glass of water and notice the hole it leaves when it's pulled out."
If you've read the board's proposal regarding the use of and potential rental possibilities for the HQ, you may see - as I clearly saw - a number of holes and questions raised, but not answered, in it.
As for the board's overall "plan" to restore ACA to financial and operational health, we all should ask, "Show me the details, the specifics, the timeline, the budget, projected revenues and your plans for how to achieve it.
The detailed analysis the Save ACA Committee produced way back last June may not be perfect or necessarily complete, but it far, far exceeds anything ACA has presented in both credibility and believeability. And who wrote it? The four founders, several former executive staff and other members who, together with many others through the decades, helped make Bikecentennial/ACA a huge success.
