LAB Reform

Some FAQ’s inconveniently left off the League’s list. Disclaimer: these are my comments. The League HQ had nothing to do with them.

Were members meaningfully consulted on the expansion of the Board to 15 members, or the change from regional to entirely at-large members, i.e., was this governance change subject to ratification by members?

No.

Will the at-large change affect your representation on the Board?

Well, we went from having one Board member responsible for a region of the country to no board members being responsible for any particular part of the country. Is that an improvement? We shall see.

Do members really elect a controlling majority of the Board?

You elect 53% of the Board. The Board chooses the rest. Oh, and the Board gets to choose the candidates who you get to vote for.

How are candidates for the board selected?

There is a list of qualifications that prospective Board members address in their application. These applications are reviewed by a Board nominating committee. You do not get to see the application via the League. The criteria are actually quite good. But we don’t really tell you what happened during the Nominating Committee deliberations, who all of the applicants were, or how we arrived at the rankings and decided who passed muster and who did not. We tell you, the membership, whom you can choose between. Trust us. We are your League government.

Is there still a petition process for those not selected who still wish to run?

Yes. One has to, without any help from your friends in the League leadership, obtain 5% of League members signatures on a petition. Try it. Its fun. A suggestion:  Any Board-approved candidates, prior to being put on the ballot, are required to themselves obtain 5% of member signatures to ensure the Membership approves those running for the Board. They can receive no help from the League in obtaining these.

How will the new voting system work?

Only as well as the lead-up to the election worked in ensuring a fair election.

Questions? Comments?

Email your League Board members and tell them what you think.

President Andy Clarke <andy@bikeleague.org>

Board Chair Hans van Naerssen <hans@bikeleague.org>

Here is hoping for a stronger, but MEMBER CENTERED, League.

This is more bad news for the League of American Bicyclists. I’m sorry Bill will resign at the end of his current term and and has withdrawn from the elections. His letter, of which I’ve only snipped some short excerpts below, is at the LAB Reform page, linked here and below. Go read it. Continue reading →

I’m often asked, “How do you know that cycle tracks and bike lanes are dangerous?  Are there studies that show this?

The answer is “Absolutely yes, but the proponents of these facilities ignore the studies.” Continue reading →

This article explains why it is so important to help the LAB election petition drive.
Continue reading →

Paradigm was a popular buzzword a few years ago. Here’s a bit of the definition from Merriam-Webster.
par·a·digm
broadly : a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind

The dominant paradigm in cycling holds that cyclists are inferior users of the roads, obligated to stay out of the way of more important users, who drive cars.
Continue reading →

LAB Reform seeks to restore the League of American Bicyclists as the national cyclists’ advocacy organization.   That means staunchly defending our right to the road, vigorously promoting the best and safest practices consistent with the education program and it means having leadership that works for and is responsive to the members.
Continue reading →