IMBA: Possible new direction for the MMBA

[dirt]

My post was so bad that it had to be deleted?

A political baiting post that belongs in the politics section, in the middle of a serious discussion about the future direction of the MMBA?

Yes.

[Tom L.]

My post was so bad that it had to be deleted?

A political baiting post that belongs in the politics section, in the middle of a serious discussion about the future direction of the MMBA?

Yes.

Alrighty then, I'll leave this discussion to the serious folks.

[Creamy]

I've been following this thread closely and based on what i've read so far, i'm in support of the MMBA chapters joining IMBA. I think we (MMBA members) are lucky to have the volunteers on the state board looking out for our best interest, you guys are doing a fantastic job, asking the right questions of IMBA and of us. I know this issue is far from resolved, but i just want to say thank you!

I agree, and im sure this will be debated way into the night, but being a member of both the MMBA & IMBA, I can see the benefits of this merger and understand everynodys fears but it would be nice to be a part of a national organization that could give some big clout to trail advocacy issues. and as mentioned let us focus on the smaller local issues and build more trail.

[c0nsumer]

I've been following this thread closely and based on what i've read so far, i'm in support of the MMBA chapters joining IMBA. I think we (MMBA members) are lucky to have the volunteers on the state board looking out for our best interest, you guys are doing a fantastic job, asking the right questions of IMBA and of us. I know this issue is far from resolved, but i just want to say thank you!

I agree, and im sure this will be debated way into the night, but being a member of both the MMBA & IMBA, I can see the benefits of this merger and understand everynodys fears but it would be nice to be a part of a national organization that could give some big clout to trail advocacy issues. and as mentioned let us focus on the smaller local issues and build more trail.

I think a good analogy for this is the NRA or AARP. Massive juggernauts of organization like those wouldn't have the collective voice and power that they do if they were a bunch of smaller organizations which just happen to be working towards the same goals.

[mbmoehl]

I've been following this thread closely and based on what i've read so far, i'm in support of the MMBA chapters joining IMBA. I think we (MMBA members) are lucky to have the volunteers on the state board looking out for our best interest, you guys are doing a fantastic job, asking the right questions of IMBA and of us. I know this issue is far from resolved, but i just want to say thank you!

I agree, and im sure this will be debated way into the night, but being a member of both the MMBA & IMBA, I can see the benefits of this merger and understand everynodys fears but it would be nice to be a part of a national organization that could give some big clout to trail advocacy issues. and as mentioned let us focus on the smaller local issues and build more trail.

As an MMBA & IMBA member as well, at $30 each, i can see the benefit to increasing my membership level in a joined MMBA/IMBA, which intern would put more money in the hands of my chapter.

[KRUG]

What support to IMBA would the MMBA be required to provide from a personnel standpoint? Would the MMBA need to send a board member(s) to some kind of national conference once a year and pay the travel expenses?

Will this be put to a membership wide vote?

[dirt]

What support to IMBA would the MMBA be required to provide from a personnel standpoint? Would the MMBA need to send a board member(s) to some kind of national conference once a year and pay the travel expenses?

Will this be put to a membership wide vote?

IMBA has a biannual conference, but attendance isn't mandatory. Nor is it restricted to IMBA only, as a few MMBA members went this year.

This would be a board decision, but the board represents the membership, which is why the board is seeking opinion and input.

[nate.phelps]

What support to IMBA would the MMBA be required to provide from a personnel standpoint? Would the MMBA need to send a board member(s) to some kind of national conference once a year and pay the travel expenses?

Will this be put to a membership wide vote?

Several board members travel to conferences each year....on their own dime. frankly it's weird to be the only MMBA person at an advocacy conference.

Vote would be easiest by chapter, but we haven't really thought that part through.

This is really about asking opinion and putting the idea out there. Figure out how we want the MMBA to operate.

[nate.phelps]

My only major worry is our representation in Lansing which IMBA will not be able to fulfill in person like our current advocacy director and lobbyist. Are there any plans to keep some state level functionality and to create a legal and representation fund? I love the idea of offloading the daily operations to IMBA, but I need to know that if another right to ride type bill comes up that we have boots on the ground in the capital, not some one making phone calls from Colorado.

Good question, Nelg: while I cannot speak for the State Board and all of the MMBA leadership, I think the answer is an emphatic YES that the current MMBA Advocacy Team and lobbyist would remain in place and could possibly expand thanks to IMBA's involvement freeing up other MMBA leadership resources for advocacy.

I know that my intention is to keep our Advocacy Team exactly as it is. Our hope is to keep the lobbyist also, with some hopes that we can figure out a way to share the costs of that. It's something I've already brought up to IMBA as one of our issues.

Regarding the continuation of the lobbyist, and hiring an ED, and other financial issues at the state level, a little information may explain some of our thinking. The revenue stream of the MMBA is membership money. We have ~1300 members, and most of them pay the normal $30/year rate. That gives us a revenue stream of ~$40K a year (that's rounding up a bit for easy math, and accounting for the fact that some memberships pay more then $30/year) 25% of that goes to the chapters, leaving the state with $30K. From that, the ED and lobbyist is paid for. Currently, the lobbyist is costing us $18K a year, leaving us with $12K left. When we decided to hire a lobbyist, it was because we felt that our representation in Lansing wasn't strong enough, and we wanted to see how this was going to work. It's a month to month contract, so we're not stuck into anything long term. We had the savings to have both a lobbyist and ED at the same time, but it was also clear that at the current revenue stream, both would not be sustainable. That was something we realized, even then, would have to be resolved in the long term.

Fact is, what we currently have is not sustainable. IMBA isn't THE answer, but it looks like one of our better options now, if we can get some of the details worked out to our satisfaction. We've already spoke with IMBA as lobbyist cost as one of the issues we need to resolve. Would that be something that the chapters would kick in for out of their share? Would that be something we can work with other organizations in the state, to share the cost and resources? Would that be something IMBA could assist with? Would grants be the best way to sustain this activity? These are all questions that we are working through.

Realize that one of the main reasons that we are looking into this is that the MMBA has gotten to a position that it cannot continue as it has financially. Many of our costs have risen over the past couple of years, and new paths have to be investigated. We're looking at solutions for problems that exist now.

But, the state board realizes how important our advocacy team, the lobbyist, and our state focused advocacy is. Whatever happens with IMBA, those are things that we cannot lose, and part of this path would be the continuation of these programs and efforts.

One other stat to include in the math equation; our general insurance policy is in the neighborhood of $10,000 a year.

[CrisCataldo]

So I read this last night and then today and am still partially confused and undecided which way I would lean. I sit here and try and analyze this from a business perspective and I have some financial questions which I am sure have been looked at and some of which have been explained. So for example...if say a chapter has 100 members at $30 each, this is $3,000 that goes to the MMBA and then that chapter would receive $750, which is 25%. but Under IMBA then they would receive $1200(40%)???

If that is right, then with only 1200 or so active members, that's $36,000 in membership fees and so $27,000 is for the MMBA. I know it's rough math but with that money the MMBA has to pay for...

- basic advocacy insurance
- the lobbyist
- some admin
- annual meeting

Now if we merged with IMBA, they would then receive $21,600 and handle the admin side, the insurance...I assume the annual meeting would go away? And the lobbyist/advocacy roles are still being debated but we expect to maintain them? Where does that money come from? IMBA? MMBA chapters?

Am I anywhere in the ballpark here with how i think it would work? And I know the numbers are not right but I trying to kind of lay this out in my head how things would work financially.

I was going through a similar scenario.....

Is the root cause analysis a funding issue? Or a personnel issue? Sounds like personnel to me. Only reason I say that is the MMBA self-funds, but is most in danger of not having anyone to run the store. They're two separate issues which might require a split approach.

Another question - what happens to funds in perpetuity (i.e the '$50,000 Dan Harrison grant' from a couple of years back)? Do these funds become the property of IMBA?

[nate.phelps]

So I read this last night and then today and am still partially confused and undecided which way I would lean. I sit here and try and analyze this from a business perspective and I have some financial questions which I am sure have been looked at and some of which have been explained. So for example...if say a chapter has 100 members at $30 each, this is $3,000 that goes to the MMBA and then that chapter would receive $750, which is 25%. but Under IMBA then they would receive $1200(40%)???

If that is right, then with only 1200 or so active members, that's $36,000 in membership fees and so $27,000 is for the MMBA. I know it's rough math but with that money the MMBA has to pay for...

- basic advocacy insurance
- the lobbyist
- some admin
- annual meeting

Now if we merged with IMBA, they would then receive $21,600 and handle the admin side, the insurance...I assume the annual meeting would go away? And the lobbyist/advocacy roles are still being debated but we expect to maintain them? Where does that money come from? IMBA? MMBA chapters?

Am I anywhere in the ballpark here with how i think it would work? And I know the numbers are not right but I trying to kind of lay this out in my head how things would work financially.

I was going through a similar scenario.....

Is the root cause analysis a funding issue? Or a personnel issue? Sounds like personnel to me. Only reason I say that is the MMBA self-funds, but is most in danger of not having anyone to run the store. They're two separate issues which might require a split approach.

Another question - what happens to funds in perpetuity (i.e the '$50,000 Dan Harrison grant' from a couple of years back)? Do these funds become the property of IMBA?

The Dan Harrison grant was only for $20,000 and is locked into an endowment fund to which there has never been contribution. To say the least in this economy the fund isn't worth $20,000. We chose to reinvest the payout this year. This fund would stay with the MMBA.

[WishIcouldcatchmybreath]

Since it has been stated that the decision isn't going to be made before the end of the year, I would like to throw the suggestion out there that we should have a speaker from both IMBA and perhaps from SORBA come to our 2011 Annual Meeting in Lansing to discuss the issue. This would give the membership the chance to hear direct from the horses' mouths, so to speak.

[nate.phelps]

Since it has been stated that the decision isn't going to be made before the end of the year, I would like to throw the suggestion out there that we should have a speaker from both IMBA and perhaps from SORBA come to our 2011 Annual Meeting in Lansing to discuss the issue. This would give the membership the chance to hear direct from the horses' mouths, so to speak.

This is already been looked into and it appears we have at least one speaker already.

Do you have specific questions?

[Geff]

Since it has been stated that the decision isn't going to be made before the end of the year, I would like to throw the suggestion out there that we should have a speaker from both IMBA and perhaps from SORBA come to our 2011 Annual Meeting in Lansing to discuss the issue. This would give the membership the chance to hear direct from the horses' mouths, so to speak. :idea:

This is already been looked into and it appears we have at least one speaker already.

Do you have specific questions?

This is something that I feel is a great idea and would really do my very best to clean up all my sched conflicts that usually arise during that weekend to hear what is being said, in person, about what works and what doesn't.

[Nelg]

The increase in distribution to the chapters was paired with an increase in overall membership fees, and affected the amount of money going toward the state very little. Before the change, the chapters only got 6% of the membership dollar, and many of the members complained that their chapters saw so little of their membership fees. That is why the changes were made.

But, our problem isn't the cost of state representation, as those are volunteers manning the Advocacy Team. The problem is becoming paying for the costs of being a business.

Increasing chapter distribution instead of covering state level liabilities coupled with dropping membership levels has impacted the fiscal trajectory of the MMBA. It's impact is primarily on the business side but it does have an impact on legal representation. John does a fantastic job and is passionate about access and trail rights, but we need to keep some financial ammo at the state level in reserve should the need to bolster or political presence via a lobbyist or other resources should the need arise.

The chapters can and will live long happy lives and can move rapidly to deal with access issues on a local level. But the state must in some way stay connected politically and financially to be effective. Bottom line, I don't want to find out that IMBA is not meeting our needs at a state level when we are behind the eight ball. Creating a safety net up front would be ideal.