At the risk of beating a dead horse, I just have to respond to
Richard's post.
1. That's what I said, we don't know. However your note implies
finances - IF true I think no severence pay is vicious. But for all I
know Dar did something really bad.
2. I understand and respect the lack of details on the firing. But it
was claimed BFW was taking a new direction. Well, where are we going?
Believe me I don't want to know all the gory details of what the board
does. The occasional summary of major decisions would be nice though,
like "By the way we revised our board election process". A lack of
communication alone wouldn't make me vote people off though. For me
it's all about #3.
3. I have reviewed your earlier comments. I don't disagree with some
of your points. I do strongly disagree with leaving an otherwise
qualified candidate off the ballot because you are afraid of a
dissenting voice on the board. Dissenting voices are good to have.
They may cause trouble at times, but sometimes they just might keep the
herd from running off a cliff. Without them on the ballot, it's not a
vote it's a waste of time and valuable resources. Let me suggest Mr.
Schwinn
review the concept of a fair election.
Doug Adler
Doug Adler's post earlier today misses a number of key points:
1. Doug, Pam, the dozens who have commented on the event and myself
were not present at Dar's termination. We are not
in a position to know the facts about this termination. Unfortunately,
we are also not in a position to get both sides of the story.
2. It is illegal for anyone but Dar to talk about it. Dar is the only
person with legal recourse if there was an unfair firing. The board is
entirely correct in remaining silent on the matter. This silence is
designed to protect Dar more than anyone else.
3. On the matter of the board election, let me suggest Mr. Adler
review
my earlier comments on the election.
Having helped hire Dar and having worked directly with her for several
years, there is no doubt the she worked tirelessly on behalf of BFW.
She has exceptional organizational and analytical talent plus an
excellent work ethic. I have never observed or even heard of any
ethical lapses on her part. She has worked hard on improving her own
performance, and I believe that she is capable of making great
contributions to the lot of cyclists or to any organization who hires
her. Her strategic analysis presented to the board last year remains a
sound blueprint for the future - one of many aspects about her
contributions to the Bike Fed about which I am thankful and about which
she should be proud.
Unfortunately, three years ago, signs began to appear that the
financial
prospects for the Bike Fed were heading in the wrong direction. The
problems were caused principally by a lack of new contracts. Dar did
an
excellent job controlling expenses, but at some point, BFW had to earn
enough new business. New contracts in Madison and Dane County virtually
disappeared 2 years ago. The red lights really started flashing for me
in June, 2006, when I saw projected revenues expected to decline by
over
28% for 2006 from 2005. In spite of comments in
http://bethenengine.com
about the poor state of the economy, evidence through last year
suggests that Wisconsin's economy had been growing steadily since 2003.
What's more, cycling has earned growing favor as a natural part of the
solution to a host of our nation's key problems - traffic/urban sprawl,
global warming, school costs and obesity. For the first time in
history, bicycles have received significant political support from both
major political parties and the bicycle industry itself, which actually
support real, honest-to-God advocacy. I could not and I do not accept
the idea that revenues
should be falling or that they should have fallen a year ago. The fact
that new contracts have grown dramatically since Jack Hirt has taken
over provides evidence that of the potential for the organization to
grow dramatically.
My views about BFW's problems naturally created a conflict with Dar.
When it became clear to me that my conflict with Dar might be hurting
her performance, I resigned as President and from my position on the
board.
Edith Merila was elected president of the board for a number of
reasons. Perhaps the most important reason was that she was one of
Dar's strongest supporters on the board. For those of you who may not
be familiar with Edith: She's a Madison area cyclist and long-time
attorney (specializing in public interest law) who
worked closely with Dar on the issues surrounding to access to roads in
western Dane County. While helping to reduce the overall tension
between town officials and cyclists, she also helped prevent a
significant trampling of cyclists rights. All of this was time
volunteered on behalf of cyclists throughout the state but principally
in Dane County. Dar was the one who actually suggested Edith as a
board
candidate. She also worked on the finance committee, the executive
committee and provided advice on other legal affairs. Edith had and
has
my full support.
By now, it's general knowledge that the Bike Fed had a financial
crisis. This crisis was caused by the failure of expected contracts to
receive final approval. Edith, as Board President, had the authority
and the obligation to oversee the day-to-day affairs of BFW -
especially if the financial condition deteriorated enough. The by-laws
at the time How it turned into a termination is between Dar and the
Bike
Fed board, and is confidential information. The Bike Fed is legally
obligated to protect Dar's privacy and reputation. As a result, it
cannot respond to Pam's question, "why the termination was carried out
in such a vicious and heartless manner", or whether the termination
was "vicious or heartless" in the first place. Nothing in any board
member's experience, matches the pain of terminating an executive
director - especially when you have so consistently supported them in
the past.
Second-guessing this decision serves no one - not Dar, not the Bike
Fed,
not the people across the state who are counting on the Bike Fed to
make
conditions better for cyclists throughout Wisconsin. Continuing to
create a divisive atmosphere within our community makes it easier for
outsiders to undermine the Bike Fed's efforts to bring about better
state funding of cycling projects, to improve treatment of cyclists by
local officials, to integrate cycling considerations in driver
education
and to provide services to cities around the state, to name but a few
of
major initiatives. I'm sure that members road lobby would love to
hear about infighting within the Bike Fed. For a legislator
looking for excuses not to give money to cycling, having an
organization
in turmoil is great news.
It is long past time for those of us concerned with the movement to
move
on. The organization has been moving forward quite successfully toward
not just recovery but toward a future that may well exceed my most
optimistic hopes.
My earlier post referred to by Richard:
I read the ED firing and election posts with a detached view, again I
don't know any of these people. I don't recall too much blame and
finger pointing. The most derogatory and negative comments I have
seen came from people opposed to Pam's campaign. I haven't seen any
negativity from Pam herself, and am concerned that you keep trying to
link her with such - seems like a smear campaign.
Sorry, but we lowly members just don't have much concrete information
to go on here. That doesn't mean we should bury our heads in the sand
and blindly "go forward". We all want positive biking results, but
that starts with having the right leaders in place. I think the board
has given a few reasons (based on the posts I've read) to believe they
may not all be the right leaders:
1. Firing the ED without warning or severance pay, to institute a
"change in direction" that we haven't heard yet.
I could overlook this. Seems harsh and suspicious to me, but then I
don't know details, and I'd like to think the board has their hearts in
the right place and is doing what they think is best for BFW.
2. Lack of communication of #1 with members.
My reaction : same as #1 above.
3. Leaving qualified candidates off the ballot.
OK, that's where I gotta draw the line. On the (apparently NOT
humourous AND grossly innaccurate) reference to Bulgarian elections - I
got the
point. Leaving candidates off the ballot undermines a vote so
thoroughly you might as well not even vote. It turns a democratic
election into a sham. Before I found out about that I doubt I would
have voted. Now you can count on it.
Unfortunately we don't have enough info to know the good from the bad
on the board, so as they say, "throw the bums out" and move ahead.
--
Doug Adler
|
