I really don't want to get into arguments on these topics, but I don't think it is right for information to get posted that isn't accurate.
I would like to point out that, despite what Richard Schwinn has posted, that gross revenues for BFW increased every year up through the end of 2005. There was a net positive income for every year that I worked at Bike Fed (Aug 2002-Jan 2007) except for 2006. 2006 is the only year that I worked at BFW that income went down or that there was a net loss. Financial problems were never stated to me as an issue for which I might be terminated...though, of course we always tried to increase revenue. Richard's comment about financial problems starting 3 years ago is simply false. His other comment about contracts in Dane County decreasing is very misleading. There was ONE Dane County Contract that lasted 3 years (extended to 4 actually) that did end. But there were other contracts with the City of Madison (for a Safe Routes to School map) and with Dane County (for motorist education) AFTER the 3 year Dane County education grant ended. Contracts and grants are not predictable things...it isn't like if you have 1 in 2004 that you ought to have 2 in 2005 and 3 in 2006. It is a very up and down thing. Overall, BFW has increased the number of grants and contracts and has had a good financial footing until last year. And...in 2007 the number of contracts has increased again...many of which were applied for prior to January 15, 2007. Jack, Chuck, Dave, and I (and other staff) worked together to increase consulting contracts over the last five years...and under my watch the number of consulting contracts increased dramatically. Richard's comments about the financial situation are very misleading and in some cases plain false. But, hey...don't take my word for it...take a look at the financial records (pre 2002 are on the web too, but require payment to view): https://mywebspace.wisc.edu/dsward2/web/BFW%20990s/ I will also reiterate that I was never given a reason for my termination and that I did not receive any warnings (written or verbal)...even though the personnel policy at the time indicated that I would get three written warnings prior to termination (except in the case of gross misconduct, which has never been indicated by anyone). Of course I constantly got feedback from the board, but feedback is different than a formal warning that says "change X or you may be fired." Apparently the board's lock hold on personnel information includes not communicating reasons for being fired to the person being fired. I believe it is this process that troubles people (including myself). It is the board's decision who they want to be ED and I don't dispute that sometimes organizations need to change staff to get a fresh perspective. I have served on boards and I know what it is like to feel like you need new blood even if the current person is doing an okay job. However, that does not give the board the right to be disrespectful and to violate their own policies. If anyone had approached me and discussed the issue with me in any kind of respectful way, I believe that the transition could have been much smoother...causing both me and the organization less pain. Should we be rehashing the past? Is it productive? Maybe not. But I think what people are trying to do is make sure that what happened isn't an indication of general poor judgment on behalf of the sitting board. Just like I could be fired...the board too has to answer for its performance. But never mind all this chatter... A question that needs to be asked, I think, is...what is the purpose of an advocacy organization? Is it to make money or is it to make progress with advocacy issues? -Dar --------------------------------- Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
