Hello again, and thanks so much for this discussion on elections. It is exciting to see how many ideas are being floated about.

Casey and Warren ~ has there been any discussion about asking USACycling to partner with us for our elections? Their database already allows for elections through USAC licensees - perhaps each region could be given access to run district elections, as well. Appreciate any info you might have.

Thanks again for the discussions.
Michael Hernandez

Just to be clear Tripp, I am not advocating that voting be tied to clubs in any way.

I suggest that each person with a USAC license be allowed to vote because most of the NCNCA Board's decisions are for the benefit of individuals, regardless of their club affiliation, and a substantial portion of NCNCA's budget comes from individuals.

Since you would like to go by the number of USAC licenses attached to anyone club, I think you should also weed out those not clubs that are not sponsored by the USAC.

WarrenG wrote:

As for "generating" more income, any one race only "generates" $1 per rider per day for the NCNCA, but some clubs, like SGW "generate" far more than that for themselves at their race(s). And some/many(?) of the small clubs don't put on a race that generates any money for the NCNCA.

As for Bob at Velo Promo, he is on the board and his vote is one of 4 or 5 of the votes at the board meetings. There is no question that he has a lot of influence on NCNCA policy.

And the legislature argument has a flaw in that the House of Representative members are tied to the population of a state or district, as are the votes in the electoral college and the number of delegates each state has at the national conventions.

My point in mentioning our federal system is that it has checks and balances. Small states that don't have much of a voice in the house get a voice in the senate that is equal to larger states. Giving larger clubs more votes based on membership number would give them an inequitable level of influence, since many smaller clubs play a greater role in race promotion than do some larger clubs. A system such as "a vote for every ten members" gives an SGW or a VSRT 2 or 3 votes, while a DBC gets 14 or 15. Such a system marginalizes teams that have been around for 30 or more years and have been promoting some of our best races for years and years.

I'm not arguing that the current system is the best possible system. Instead, I'm arguing against switching to a system that bases votes based strictly on club size. No club's membership will agree 100% on how to vote. So giving a larger club more votes puts more influence in the hands of whoever at that club is making the decision about how to vote.

And yes, Bob is on the board, but what if he wasn't? His club gets one vote because it has six members, while another club gets 15? That hardly seems fair, especially since, as I mentioned above, under such a system not every person with a license is voting, but instead increased power is put into the hands of those who are making decisions.

Furthermore, while NCNCA may get $10 per license, that revenue is not "generated" by the club a particular license holder joins. That rider would join one team or another, so it isn't the "club" that is generating revenue. The argument that a larger team "generates" more revenue than a smaller one is not logical. And the fact that a club generates income from promoting races seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the argument. Of course clubs generate money from putting on races, at least if the clubs put on good races that racers enjoy. Clubs also generate revenue for community organizations, charities, etc. What does that have to do with how many votes a club should receive?

So giving each license holder a vote is one thing, but giving one team 15 votes while leaving another team with one vote would be unfair.

Keep in mind that this discussion is hypothetical and only addresses the suggetion of having a number of delegates that reflects the size of the club membership.
The proposal that Warren and I support is that of individuals regardless of club affiliation would be able to vote...in an election.

In the multiple delegate scenario, the answer to Jonathon's question is "no".
It would not matter how many times a member raced, or if they raced at all, only that they held a USA Cycling license with your club as the affiliation.
If you have 114 USA Cycling licensed members, then for NCNCA's purposes, you have 114 members.

BTW: It seems Robert gets to vote twice. Once as Golden Chain, and again as a board member.

Ron

It seems the current system mirrors more closely the senate rather than the house. When the NCNCA clubs voted to join with the USAC several years ago (2003?) it was an extremely close one (by only one vote), but drew most member clubs into the election. If we had individuals vote on district policy, the feeling may be that one vote won't matter much and a lot of "delegates" neglect to vote on key issues, just like a lot of California voters during regular elections.

George Meilahn
Current VP Road
Secretary Candidate

Part of NCNCA's revenue is a rebate from USAC for each licensee in our district. I think it is $10/rider per year. This amounts to 1/3 of NCNCA's annual income.

Another part of revenue that is per rider is that each race entry fee in the NCNCA district (essentially) includes $1 per racer per day of racing. This fee is "charged" by the NCNCA and collected from the race organization.

Just let each licensee in the district have one vote and then it doesn't matter what team(s) they are on.

As for "generating" more income, any one race only "generates" $1 per rider per day for the NCNCA, but some clubs, like SGW "generate" far more than that for themselves at their race(s). And some/many(?) of the small clubs don't put on a race that generates any money for the NCNCA.

As for Bob at Velo Promo, he is on the board and his vote is one of 4 or 5 of the votes at the board meetings. There is no question that he has a lot of influence on NCNCA policy.

And the legislature argument has a flaw in that the House of Representative members are tied to the population of a state or district, as are the votes in the electoral college and the number of delegates each state has at the national conventions.

While some members are attached to other clubs, that number is not a large number as you would think of the 342 current SJBC members, 46 race for other clubs.

Our current total holding a USAC License is 114. Now not all of these members actually race, some just buy the license to support the sport. Will the NCNCA narrow down the list due to race participation since no money is collected from these individuals throughout the year?

If voting in NCNCA was made proportional to the size of a club the only way to determine what the size of a club is is to use the information in the USAC rider database. While the claim has been made that Alto Velo and San jose have over 300 members per the USAC database from today Alto Velo has 156 USAC licensed riders and San Jose has 111 USAC licensed riders.

Of course if someone got smart and started a club by the name of unattached then they would be able to claim 1073 members.

WarrenG wrote:

Similarly, a club of 350 riders generates approximately ten times as much revenue as a club of 35 riders, so those 350 riders should have more say than 35 riders about how the money is spent.

I don't understand this argument. In what sense is "revenue" tied directly to the number of members a club has? We (SGW) promote two well attended races, and I'd guess that those two races generate more than a single race promoted by a club twice our size. Bob generates more revenue than anyone (I realize that VeloPromo isn't technically half of the ncnca calendar, but it sure feels that way at times), so should Golden Chain get more votes than anyone else?

And as Ron points out, how do we count membership? I've got folks on my team that participate in team events, but they race under the jersey of another squad. Who gets to count them? Do they count twice? Voting based on size is a tricky issue. Even our federal government isn't driven totally by size (i.e., two legislative bodies, with each state getting two senators regardless of size and the other legislative body driven purely by population).

Furthermore, doing so would ignore the importance that smaller clubs play in race promotion. Again, we are a club of about 30 to 35 members, yet the Land Park Crit/Bariani RR weekend is one of the bigger weekends of the season. I would argue that our role as a promoter is equal to the role Davis Bike Club plays, yet DBC is several times larger than SGW. Does DBC get five votes to our one vote?

This isn't as simple of an issue as it is being made out to be.

WarrenG wrote:

The NCNCA officers/directors are paid positions, $35,000 for 2009, so why shouldn't the people who pay their salaries get to choose who that is with equal representation?

http://www.ncnca.org/docs/newsarchive/2009NCNCAOperBudget.pdf

Hey Warren, just so folks understand the detail behind that budget line:

Officers' & Directors' Fees

BAR BAT Coordinator 3,000
Equipment Manager 16,000
VP Road 500
President 5,000
Secretary 3,000
Treasurer 3,000
Webmaster 3,000

Total Officers' Fees 33,500

As you can see, no one is getting rich by being an NCNCA Officer.

Lorri

I here what you are saying, so let me qualify my comment a little.

Actual members that would count for calculating a vote in this way should be based on members that hold a license with that club as there USA Cycling club.

Example: Jonathan stated that SJBC has 300 members.
http://www.usacycling.org/clubs/members.php?club=249

Yet, there is nowhere near 300 members listed for their club on the USA Cycling website.

Same goes for Alto Velo:
http://www.usacycling.org/clubs/members.php?club=3178

It's a lot, but it's not 300.

There has to be a way to legitimately claim a rider as one of your constituents rather than who paid what dues. Otherwise we would have a case of double and even triple votes with riders joining multiple clubs just so that they can participate in club activities, like the SJBC training events.

It has to go by what club is on the rider's license.

Ron

Individual people/members generate/pay virtually all of the $105,000 annual operating budget of the NCNCA. Only $4,000 comes from club dues (less than 5% of the revenue).

The NCNCA officers/directors are paid positions, $35,000 for 2009, so why shouldn't the people who pay their salaries get to choose who that is with equal representation?

Similarly, a club of 350 riders generates approximately ten times as much revenue as a club of 35 riders, so those 350 riders should have more say than 35 riders about how the money is spent.

From a practical perspective, nearly all of the NCNCA's policy decisions do not affect any one club nearly as much as they affect individual people distributed among many clubs. Virtually all of the money that is being spent by the NCNCA officers is generated by individuals, and is spent on behalf of those individuals, so the idea of letting only one vote per each club determine the officers is not as appropriate and not as representative as one rider, one vote.

http://www.ncnca.org/docs/newsarchive/2009NCNCAOperBudget.pdf

You have 300 members, but not all of them are what I would considered active members.

Remember, SJBC's membership is artificially inflated by people who join only to participate in the Winter series and Tuesday training crits. Many actually belong to other clubs that they race for.

Ron

that would be nice, but AV, SJBC have over 300 members, I would probably suggest for larger clubs, 50 for 1

litigationtech wrote:Maybe I missed it if someone else has already suggested this, but what about giving club delegates multiple votes based on their membership?

The current and previous NCNCA boards have already considered that idea and rejected it. Hopefully the 2010 board will take a more modern and appropriate approach.

Maybe I missed it if someone else has already suggested this, but what about giving club delegates multiple votes based on their membership? Perhaps one vote for 10 or less, then one additional vote per each 10 additional members? This would be far less complicated than having every member vote, and would better represent the constituency.

Since the delegates have accepted the responsibility to represent their clubs, I believe the delegates would generally be more informed and thus better-qualified to vote, as opposed to the individual members - unless great and successful efforts were made to educate all members.

Hello again.

I'm proud of the teams and clubs that I've ridden with in my years in NorCal Nevada. I look forward to working with more clubs and teams in the future as we continue to develop cycling in our region.

As to the Early Bird Criteriums - it's not a series that I'm able to make in person - although I always have discussions with individual riders about the pros and cons of participating.

I understand the focus on large group mentoring of riders - however, if the skill level of the mentors is not strong, the benefits of the instruction can be lost.

I'm very much in favor of all efforts to institutionalize mentoring in the NCNCA look forward to a chance at VP for 2010 to help support, review, and refine such efforts.

And finally, though I won't be able to attend the Early Birds this year to discuss this, or any other topic you'd like, Jess - feel free to let me know of a time you would like to meet, and I'll coordinate my schedule. Based on your personal message sent to me over the forum, I'm assuming you'd like to have that discussion sooner, than later.

Just let me know a couple options for when/where, and I'll confirm with you. I will also be at the Nov 2nd NCNCA meeting.

Michael Hernandez
VP Candidate

ZebraMan wrote:you [Michael] never bother to help at Early Birds.

To be fair, Michael organizes and runs the Tuesday evening beginner sessions at the track, and I think some Mondays also. I think there were at least a half dozen of these this year. IMO the effort there exceeds helping out at 5 EB's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjsmSeKc1sU

"Don't you two see that you're in love with each other? Why can't you face that already?"

Quote:As to specific points in this forum post - I'll do my best to respond to all issues, but please feel free to follow up with me via this post or email if anyone has more questions or feedback.

I believe Jess Raphael began the post with two issues:
1. the questioning of the veracity of a ncnca.com/forum poll.
2. my language to describe Jess as smelly and misguided

As to the first issue, I do believe that multiple forums are necessary to get the viewpoints of such a widespread and diverse community of cycling clubs and riders we have. All of the candidate running this year have experience racing and volunteering for events and have strong connections with different regions. We are strongly positioned to have a great 2010 season with coordinated, committed leadership.

As to the second issue - "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah."

Yes, Michael, you are once again displaying those strong qualities of maturity and leadership that the NCNCA requires, without even a hint of bias or ill-will. I can see why Lorri would so strongly promote you as her running-mate, certainly better-qualified than I to lead.

Good luck, Board. Good luck, NCNCA.

As for your disrespectful opinions of me personally, Michael, I will be overjoyed to discuss them with you personally at Early Birds, rather than on the Forum. Oh, that's right ... you never bother to help at Early Birds. Okay, then, wherever. That is, if I can recognize you in whatever kit you are choosing to wear this year when you choose to actually race rather than just flap your ample mouth. I guess now that you've consumed all of the VOS fatted calf, it's time to move on to the next feeding ground.

See you soon, MISTER Vice President.

BTW, I really wish Casey would share his NCVA election story with the forum (if for entertainment value only). He shared it with me recently and I thought it was priceless. But it was also a good illustration of how the every member votes scenario could potentially play out.

Lorri

Warren, although Dan is a member of Roaring Mouse (no longer an AV member unless he has dual membership), he promotes LKHC as an individual. LKHC has no club affiliation that I know of.

Member clubs who promote races pay $1/racer to the NCNCA as a surcharge (covering equipment use). That fee isn't necessarily passed onto the racers who participate in a given race. In the case of MPGP (and I think other promoters would agree), all income comes into the race (sponsorship, entry fees) and then all expenses are paid. I don't know that any of us specifically pass our surcharges onto the racers when we establish our registration fees. I know Velo Promo mentions both the USAC ($3) and NCNCA ($1) surcharges in their race ads, but when it really comes down to it, it's just a matter of income in and expenses out.

Lorri

velogirl wrote:Ron, beyond just voting rights, your individual membership concept could benefit individuals in other ways. For example, Dan Connelly runs the LKHC. One of the benefits of member clubs is that they can borrow NCNCA equipment for their events. As an individual member, Dan might then be able to borrow equipment for his events (which in 2010 should include electronic timing equipment).

Dan is a member of Alto Velo, so doesn't that mean AV, via Dan can use NCNCA equipment?

After some changes, you might still encourage a few more clubs to join NCNCA if their members could use equipment only if their club was a paid member.

And note to Dan, doing a series of events through USAC adds very little complication or expense, especially if you have licensed officials helping who don't require you to pay them more than you did when they were helping you run a non-USAC race, and prizes are minimal. Friday Nights at the track were done this way in 2009 and we might be doing other weeknight series races with USAC in 2010.

NCNCA can, and does offer reasons why a club would pay to join. I doubt that many of the current "member" clubs joined just so they could vote-it's apparent there are other reasons for paying their dues to be a NCNCA club. And let's face it, any lost revenue by changing to individuals being allowed to vote will be small compared to the total of NCNCA income.

Every racer pays money to the NCNCA as part of their entry fee, so, if we are to avoid another Boston Tea Party-no taxation without representation... 8)

Given this, and the fact that the NCNCA and its board's actions and policies affect virtually every rider, I think that any rider who is registered within NCNCA's boundaries should be allowed to vote in elections.

Ron, beyond just voting rights, your individual membership concept could benefit individuals in other ways. For example, Dan Connelly runs the LKHC. One of the benefits of member clubs is that they can borrow NCNCA equipment for their events. As an individual member, Dan might then be able to borrow equipment for his events (which in 2010 should include electronic timing equipment).

As we move into 2010, it's clear that we should really take a look at what are the benefits of NCNCA membership (for clubs and, potentially, for individuals). Right now, the emphasis is on elections, but there are other benefits (such as BAT ranking and access to NCNCA equipment). I think it's probably time we looked at all the benefits we currently offer and those we could potentially offer and really bring value to our members.

Lorri

That is kind of where I am headed as I formulate the proposal to the BOD.

The proposal will have a couple of options for the BOD to review.

One way to address it is to have individuals of a member club vote, rather than a club delegate.
With this idea individuals not on an NCNCA member club would not get to vote. This would address at least one of Casey's concerns.

In addition to this, there could also be an individual NCNCA membership offered. This would allow unattached riders to vote and those on non NCNCA member teams. It would also create a small revenue stream for NCNCA. Probably not significant by any means, but it could offset the cost of setting such a program up.
(I better copy and paste this into Word. Geesh, there is part of the proposal right there.)

Cheers,
Ron
Candidate for President.

P.S. This is an example of how I work, get right at the problem and look for a solution. I am not as polished and articulate as the other candidates, not as educated either. But I have been running businesses for 20 years and I am used to solving problems. The answer is in the solution.

Couldn't we maintain club-level membership and allow individuals who are members of an NCNCA affiliated club the right to vote for elected positions? This would appear to serve two purposes. One, keep NCNCA membership/dues collection/etc. simple to administer. Two, it would allow more individuals to participate in the process and give larger clubs a more fairly weighted voice (if they choose to vote).

I am thankful for all those interested in serving as an elected BOD member or as an unelected volunteer. I am excited about the future of our district with so much passionate involvement.

Hi Warren.
Thanks for the question. Lorri and I had a lot of conversations about the NCNCA workload and we're going to be working together to make sure the duties of the offices get executed efficiently and effectively.

What you term the 'thankless and tedious' job of upgrading, I see as an extremely interesting and critical job within the NCNCA.

I'm commited to working hard at the VP job if elected, and happily accept recommendations for improvement.
Michael

Thank you Ron. You will be providing us with a win-win.

mhernandez wrote:H
I am running for Vice President because I believe that I can positively affect rider development through the upgrade process and the special grants activities of the NCNCA.

Michael, your past performance as NCVA BOD Secretary when the monthly BOD meeting minutes were not being prepared and posted online for long periods after meetings, sometimes as long as 60+ days, and your sometimes tardy posting of race results from the races you organize at the track provide me with concern about how timely you will be in handling the similarly thankless and tedious job of processing license upgrades.

Personally, I would not want that part of the VP's duties, and I will be thankful that anyone will do it, but please humor me and address this concern. FWIW, I appreciate your widespread enthusiasm in helping the NorCal cycling community.

This thread has given me some great ideas of how to formulate a proposal to develop Warren's ideas and incorporate Casey's concerns.

I might be wrong, but I recall us having this discussion just after a board meeting and it might have been too late to submit between the last meeting and now.

Like Lorri mentioned, the election process has certainly made a dramatic change for the better and with a new administration I really think we will start to see a lot more activity and interest from the masses. As that activity and interest increases their is valid reason to continue to find ways to keep people and clubs plugged in.

Lorri probably has the election in the bag, but like any race it ain't over til it's over.
Should Lorri win the seat I do intend to be involved with the BOD as actively as time would allow (right now that's a lot).
Kind of have my eyeballs on the VP of MTB, after all I am heading up a dirt squad that will race internationally this year and I have a UCI Pro MTB license. It's also the only type of bike racing where I have ever beaten Jeff Angerman in a sprint.

Cheers,
Ron

Hello again - and thanks again for this opportunity for all the candidates to share information and positions on this forum.

As someone who is really, really interested in electronic forums - I still do have a hard time keeping up with all the discussions. The value of the discussions is not adversely affected by the limited audience that this specific forum might enlist.

What I hope we'll do is continue to spread the word about how NCNCA elections work, and how cyclists in our region can get involved with them, and the NCNCA activities.

Looking at this year's election results thus far - we already have over 30 clubs voting. I'm SO excited about this turnout thus far. I really think we need to recognize that we are very likely going to get a voting representation from the largest majority of voting members ever in NCNCA elections.

*Casey - i know this is a burden to ask, but could you research and produce the metrics on number of clubs who have voted in the past elections? Thanks so much if possible.*

As to specific points in this forum post - I'll do my best to respond to all issues, but please feel free to follow up with me via this post or email if anyone has more questions or feedback.

I believe Jess Raphael began the post with two issues:
1. the questioning of the veracity of a ncnca.com/forum poll.
2. my language to describe Jess as smelly and misguided

As to the first issue, I do believe that multiple forums are necessary to get the viewpoints of such a widespread and diverse community of cycling clubs and riders we have. All of the candidate running this year have experience racing and volunteering for events and have strong connections with different regions. We are strongly positioned to have a great 2010 season with coordinated, committed leadership.

As to the second issue - "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaah."

But to expand on that response - I very much do have opinions about the development and promotion of cycling in our region that are significantly different than Jess Raphael. And, for that matter - my views on cycling in our region differ from those of the other presidential candidate, Ron Castia.

I believe that with Lorri Lee Llown, we have a presidential candidate that is actively soliciting input from clubs on how the NCNCA will run and develop in the future. With Lorri, we have a candidate who has years of first-hand experience of what it takes to build and sustain the necessary relationships and support systems in NorCal to increase not only women's racing, but the overall quality and coordination of cycling in our area.

I am running for Vice President because I believe that I can positively affect rider development through the upgrade process and the special grants activities of the NCNCA.

I also believe that I can directly assist the President of the NCNCA in outreaching to the many promoting clubs in our region to coordinate their immediate needs and plans for future development.

I have strong relationships with promoters, officials, and riders around the region and hope to improve on them to better be a VP.

Thanks again for the opportunity to share information about my candidacy - and thanks for getting involved with the voting process.

Remember, although only club representatives vote in this particular NCNCA election - ALL USACycling members can vote - and there are a LOT of important elected positions in USACycling that we can do a better job at letting folks know about.

Very cool - participation makes things better!
Regards,
Michael Hernandez

Casey, it is far easier than you suggest. If your license says you reside in this district you get to vote. Online voting is relatively simple and inexpensive these days.

The discussion here, and within clubs about this election and the problems inherent in only allowing one vote per club is demonstrating that the old method is flawed and should be updated.

No idea should be discarded simply because only a few people suggested it. On the NCVA board we have enacted ideas that were initially suggested by only one person, for the benefit of many people.

As an example, last month I received an email a few days before our NCVA board meeting from one person about an idea they had. We not only added the item to an already full agenda of items, because that person was unable to attend the meeting we arranged to call that person during our meeting so that all of the board members could hear directly (via speakerphone) from that person about their idea.

I'm sorry Warren but I don't see a ground swell of support for the idea of changing the structure of NCNCA to allow for individual membership and have individuals vote for officers, and other matters that come before NCNCA membership.

If there is a desire to change things to individual membership then there would be questions of how much the individual membership is going to cost. Setting up the process of getting individual membership applications out and then processing the individual memberships. A lot to do before the elections this year, if the proposal to change the constitution had been approved in the first place. Just because a proposal is made doesn't mean it will be approved.

Just because one or two people make a suggestion here on the forums doesn't mean that is the voice of the community.

I second Jess's renomination.

Ron

velogirl wrote:Warren, had you sent me a proposal I would have happily presented it at the October NCNCA meeting. I submitted two other proposals on behalf of others at that meeting (including one from Jess).

Lorri, I have no doubt that you would have, whether you agreed with it or not. I never doubt your integrity and I know that your concern for what goes on in in the NCNCA is exemplary. What I saw was that more than half the board would not support the proposal and as far as changing the election procedure for this year, the effort would have been fruitless,

velogirl wrote:As a BOD member, I think our role is to be un-biased. I am happy to submit proposals that others feel strongly about (whether or not I agree or disagree with that proposal). But I don't feel it's my job to cull bits and pieces of opinion from the forum and create a proposal on someone else's behalf.
Lorri

As a board member of the NCVA I listen to conversations, discussions, and suggestions among people in the velodrome community, and I do present ideas/proposals at the board meetings based on that information, whether a person formally requests it or not. Just because an idea is not formulated into a formal proposal should not mean the idea doesn't merit discussion by the board.

All the candidates claim to be "in touch" with the community they would serve, but I think part of being "in touch" is forwarding the community's ideas to the board whenever it's reasonable to do so.

The facts are that this election is being held a month early, the current board could have changed the election procedure in time to allow individual people to vote instead of using an out-dated election process more relevant when there was normally just one candidate per office, but the current board chose not to make the change. To claim that there wasn't time to add the item to the October agenda, or that it wasn't discussed because I, or someone else didn't offer a formal proposal is not a genuine attempt to serve the NCNCA community in the best way possible.

I realize that the items about the election procedure are about a moot point because the election has already begun, but I think there are lessons in here about what a board can do on behalf of the people it serves.

I RE-NOMINATE Jess Rafael for VP of the NCNCA.

ZebraMan wrote:
I therefore respectfully withdraw my name from nomination as Vice President.

Jess Raphael

Jess, you can not effect positive change from the outside as readily as you could from the inside, as a board member. Your best chance to help in the ways you could, would be as the elected VP, or as one of the other VP's. Don't you think it is better to have two different points of view-both reasonable, in a discussion about solutions, rather than half the board always in sync (as you suggest) with each other?

As far as Michael, he says/writes some pretty dumb stuff sometimes, but I don't think it's Lorri's place to apologize for him, nor is she responsible for what he says, because other than possibly being on the board at the same time they are not "joined" in any way that I know of. They are two independent people, and because the NCNCA Pres and VP don't really work together to present only one point of view (like the US pres and VP normally do) I think it's okay if they each speak for themselves, have different opinions, have different approaches, etc..

And Jess, in the end, you and Lorri have similar views about many fundamental things that are helpful; at least similar enough to work together to effect positive things for the NCNCA.

Good job, Michael. Congratulations.

How fortuitous you happened to be browsing, but not reading, this thread within minutes of my last post.

No further questions. None at all.

Hi again, this is Michael Hernandez.
Sorry, just got to this thread - haven't read it through, just wanted to acknowledge that I'll respond to any questions specifically to me when available after work tonite.

Thanks for all who are participating in this election. 2010 is going to be a great year for cycling in NorCal.

Regards,
Michael
VP Candidate

velogirl wrote:
Jess, I didn't say you were unfit to serve as an Officer, so please don't put words in my mouth.
Lorri

Okay. I'll use your own words and put them back in your mouth:

Quote:And I think the fact that this still bothers you, six months after the fact, says something about your character and your ability to be un-biased as a potential Officer of the NCNCA.

Lorri

So questioning "my character and my ability to be unbiased as an Officer of the NCNCA" is not the same in your opinion as saying that I am "unfit to serve as an Officer." Okay. Nice distinction, but hardly a convincing one.

velogirl wrote:I can only speak for myself in response to your original post -- that's what I did.

Bull. You spoke on behalf of yourself and Michael when you endorsed him as your running-mate, making the following promises for you AND HIM:

velogirl wrote: I'm running for 2010 NCNCA President along with Michael Hernandez as VP. We'll be an outstanding team to take the NCNCA to the next level. With the opportunities provided by the transition to a new BOD, our goal is to improve the racing experience and support for everyone in the NCNCA -- racers, race promoters, officials, coaches, even the girls (and boys) in the feedzone.

Lorri

Do you genuinely believe that you are not in some way responsible for the offensive actions of your chosen running-mate, especially during a public discussion before the election in which you were an active participant?

Is it actually your position that you need not address the propriety of the actions of your chosen second-in-command? Is that the sort of "untouchable" President, practiced in the art of denial and avoidance, that we are to choose?

And where is Michael Hernandez and his super-sensitive nostrils in this discussion? Maybe he couldn't stand the lingering odor of his own making. Or maybe there is no justification for a personal attack, but he just doesn't have the STUFF to apologize. Now lets' talk about character, Lorri.

The writing is on the wall, Lorri, and I don't like what it says, nor how you choose to read or ignore it at your whim. Since I believe it is likely that you will be the next President, and since you have made it very clear to me that the proverbial buck will not be permitted to stop with you or your choice of running mate, and since I do not relish the idea of a member being unapologetically slandered whenever he/she may raise an issue with which you or your Second-In-Command disagree, I do not believe your Board is the appropriate place for me to serve the NCNCA. We apparently have inconsistent approaches, if not values.

I therefore respectfully withdraw my name from nomination as Vice President.

Jess Raphael

ZebraMan wrote:

In the view of she who would be president, if a member voices an opinion on the Forum for purpose of public discussion about inflated registration fees, the absence of prize money, and the failure to follow NCNCA rules regarding publication of race flyers, he is unfit to serve as an officer for lack of character.

Jess, I didn't say you were unfit to serve as an Officer, so please don't put words in my mouth.

I can only speak for myself in response to your original post -- that's what I did.

Lorri

velogirl wrote:Jess, I am responding, not because I feel that I need to defend my comments (I don't), but because I think forum readers deserve a response.

In the statistical world, a sample size that small is not relevant.

I could post a poll on the forum about any topic I please. For example, I could post a poll asking if clear water bottles are superior to white water bottles. If 54 forum readers respond to this poll, out of 1,000s of racers in the district, does that mean that one choice is superior to the other (in the big picture)?

In my life experience, I think slamming a race promoter on a public forum isn't appropriate. I tend to think it's more effective to personally speak with that person.

And I think the fact that this still bothers you, six months after the fact, says something about your character and your ability to be un-biased as a potential Officer of the NCNCA.

Lorri

ps -- if you want an example of relevant sample size, I give you the recent Masters Women's BAR/BAT survey. because I know that the forum is only utilized by a very few (vocal) folks in the district, I ran the poll using a different polling tool, and in addition to announcing it here and on the NCNCA e-list, I sent personal invitations to all of the club presidents and to all of the women who had raced MPGP (since I had their email addresses). 81 masters women responded to that poll -- nearly 20% of the district. That's a relevant sample size.

While the sampling size is relevant, the near-unanimity of the response is not.

What is shocking to me, Lorri, is that while you attempt to defend your position regarding the perceived invalidiity of the largest sampling of any Forum poll and attempt to discount the 125 replies and 4000 views of a nine-page discussion by questioning my "character," you say absolutely nothing to defend or denounce the direct and vile personal attack gratuitously levied by your chosen running-mate.

So let me get this straight ...

In the view of she who would be president, if a member voices an opinion on the Forum for purpose of public discussion about inflated registration fees, the absence of prize money, and the failure to follow NCNCA rules regarding publication of race flyers, he is unfit to serve as an officer for lack of character.

But if another member in furtherance of their opinion gratuitously attacks a member on the public forum by saying and insisting that they have bad personal odor and hygeine, their character is deserving of annointing as your personal choice.

That, above all, speaks volumes.

A simple apology on Michael's behalf and a renouncement of his slander would have sufficed. I certainly would not expect it from the candidate himself, but I did expect more from a sitting Board member and a person whose qualifications I have already been heard to trumpet.

Never having received an apology, and seeing you thus annoint my attacker, you can hardly say that my rekindled irritation does my character a disservice. How remarkably ironic.

Warren, had you sent me a proposal I would have happily presented it at the October NCNCA meeting. I submitted two other proposals on behalf of others at that meeting (including one from Jess).

As a BOD member, I think our role is to be un-biased. I am happy to submit proposals that others feel strongly about (whether or not I agree or disagree with that proposal). But I don't feel it's my job to cull bits and pieces of opinion from the forum and create a proposal on someone else's behalf.

Lorri

velogirl wrote:
As discussed in this thread, the NCNCA Constitution can be changed, but no one made a proposal for that change at the October NCNCA meeting. Based on the discussion, I actually thought you were going to make that proposal at the October NCNCA meeting. If you feel strongly about this, perhaps it's something that you would like to do in the coming year before the 2011 election.

I was disappointed, but not surprised that none of the current board members proposed that the constitution get changed in time for this election. It was their place to do so. If the 2010 board can't be bothered either, then I will propose it myself. If you like, I can construct a poll about it too. :wink:

Casey, the NCNCA may have been started to represent the needs of clubs, but the actual function of the NCNCA has now gone far beyond just serving the needs of clubs. Most of what I see the NCNCA board doing now has much more to do with the needs of individual riders, and so it is logical that the riders are in reality the members being served by the NCNCA, and they should therefore be the one selecting the NCNCA leadership.

Throwing up an example of entry fee limits is irrelevant because USAC already has rules about entry fees that can not be overruled by the NCNCA. And riders are not so ignorant that they would require that races have entry fees limited to $10 or $15, for a variety of reasons.

Warren, this election is being held under the rules of the current NCNCA Constitution. I actually think we've done a great service to members by facilitating on-line voting and actively inviting all of the member clubs to cast a vote (as opposed to previous elections where the only votes were from folks who attended the election meeting -- typically just the current BOD). We are headed in the right direction.

As discussed in this thread, the NCNCA Constitution can be changed, but no one made a proposal for that change at the October NCNCA meeting. Based on the discussion, I actually thought you were going to make that proposal at the October NCNCA meeting. If you feel strongly about this, perhaps it's something that you would like to do in the coming year before the 2011 election.

http://www.ncncaracing.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1892&start=30&postdays=...

Lorri

NCNCA doesn't have 3,000 members. NCNCA is not an organization of individuals who have a USAC license. NCNCA is an organization of clubs. Thus NCNCA has something like 70 members. Should NCNCA have individual members? Some local associations have individual members. In those cases where a local association also has individual members then a rider has to be an individual member in order to take part in a program like the BAR.

The interests of the individual rider isn't always the same as the race promoting club. For example individual riders may strongly be in favor of limiting race entry fees to a Max of $10. The problem is I don't think very many races would get promoted if there was a NCNCA rule stating the max entry fee for a race promoted by an NCNCA member club is $10. Then again we would probably see all the race promoters drop out of NCNCA to avoid any such rule imposed by NCNCA on NCNCA member clubs.

NCNCA can't control entry fees. Pretty much the approval by the NCNCA president of a race permit application and race ad are limited to.

A) Does the race permit application contain everything it is suppose to ( Competitive race permit application form, competitive event checklist, 3rd party named insured form, medical checklist and a copy of the race Ad).

B) Does the race Ad conform to USAC rules ( does the race pay out prizes deep enough based on the size of the prizelist, Are the proposed categories allowed, are the field limits appropriate etc).

C) If everything is correct for items A and B above then the last question for the NCNCA president to decide is if there are enough officials available to staff the race that day ( only a real consideration if there are other races on the same day) and if the promoter has a history of putting on unsafe events. Basically the only grounds on which NCNCA can deny a race permit approval is if there will not be enough officials or if the promoter has a history of putting on unsafe events. Since USAC allows for a free market on entry fees the entry fees charges have no influence on the race permit approval process.

Now of course NCNCA is free to impose any rules it wants to that will only apply to NCNCA member clubs. Of course if clubs decide that the imposition of additional rules by NCNCA out weighs the benefits of belonging to NCNCA then clubs can simply not join NCNCA and still put on their races.

velogirl wrote:TimBurg wrote:
Actually not really. No people will be electing officers, the sixty seven or so member clubs will be doing so. Of those, 31 have already voted. My club will be discussing our vote at our upcoming team meeting(s), and others will likely do the same and vote before the December deadline.

Tim, voting closes November 2nd @ 8:00pm -- that's next Monday

Oops, my bad. In my haste must have conflated the non-elected VPs with the election period. Thanks for correcting that Lori.

velogirl wrote:With the current NCNCA election process, it's really up to each member club to manage their vote in the way they deem appropriate.

One vote can not truly represent 10, 200, or 400 members.

With online voting so easy to do these days, it's past time to change the NCNCA election process to allow each NCNCA member to express their own opinion.