LAB Reform's Successes

Without LAB Reform it is likely that LAB elections would still have just one "choice" (the board's candidate) with no opportunity for a challenger to get on the ballot and with most members not knowing that there was any alternate point of view.  It is also likely that the education program would have quietly faded away.


LAB Reform started in response to problems that the management and board caused and then refused to correct.  Instead of listening to members, the small faction that seized control of the League acted to isolate itself from member oversight by operating in secrecy and by weakening member oversight.  The reform movement (starting before we began calling ourselves LAB Reform) has had some positive impact on the League.

Progress inspired by LAB Reform includes:

More reforms in League operation and governance are needed:

It is extremely unlikely that these crucial steps will be taken with the current roster of directors.  As their terms expire, the directors standing in the way of these reforms must be replaced with directors responsive to the members.  For appointed directors, this may require waiting until they reach their 3-term limit, unless they can be pressured to resign sooner.

As more reform-minded directors get elected, we will be able to exert more influence on the Nominating Committee, which has enormous power to shape the makeup of the Board.

We need your help to get OUR League back!


Footnotes

Note 1:  Unfortunately, much of the League's advocacy work is completely contrary to the principles behind the education program, and even LAB's own policy statements.  This makes the League schizophrenic:  It teaches the best practices of bicycle driving while supporting separate facilities that encourage the worst mistakes of novices, as well as contributing to the perception that cyclists cannot operate in reasonable safety on normal roads.

Note 2:  We have a serious concern that the rules favor the incumbent because they require prior notification and the providing of a sample before a challenger is allowed to use the mailing list.

Note 3:  This is a return to the practice that was abandoned over 10 years ago.  Traditionally, more effort was made to obtain at least two candidates for each seat.  Without true competition, elections become nothing more than Soviet style ratification of the Party's chosen candidates.

Note 4:  We believe LAB Reformís posting of notes taken by its members at meetings prompted this welcome change.  Although we commend LAB for this action, we note that there is a long delay between the end of a meeting and the approval, and subsequent posting, of the minutes.  We think two months is a reasonable time to allow the Secretary to prepare and circulate draft minutes, have the directors circulate comments and corrections, and then vote by email to approve the final version so the minutes can be posted.  An alternative is to post the draft minutes with a notation that they are 'subject to change.'  We also need to see minutes from telephone "meetings" and executive committee meetings.

Note 5:  We hope this is more than lip service done to blunt our criticism.  We also note that John Forester contributed several times as much (18 times as much!) out of his personal funds.

Note 6:  In 2007, another promise was broken to run an article about law reform in the LAB magazine.  Since then they seem to have "forgotten" that they offered support.

Note 7:  Unfortunately, Bicycle Friendly States still encourages segregation with little recognition of hazards (it mentions standards, but the standards are weak and often ignored).


Please join us and help restore the BikeLeague to members.

See www.labreform.org to join LAB Reform.

© Copyright 2005-2008 LAB Reform.  Material may be copied with attribution.
Revised 7/19/08