September 26, 2013 board meeting minutes

SILICON VALLEY BICYCLE COALITION
MINUTES OF MEETING OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS
September 26, 2013

A regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Directors of Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (“SVBC”) was held at 6:30 PM on Thursday, September, 2013, at 1922 The Alameda, San Jose.

Board members present: Phil Brotherton, Gary Brustin, Ian Dewar, Dave Fork, Carolyn Helmke, Ann Jasper, Scott Lane, James Lucas, Jack Miller, Alyssa Plicka, Jeff Selzer, Cheryl Smith.
Absent: Shiloh Ballard, Ted Huang, Jim Parker.
Staff present: Corinne Winter, Anne Fisher, Colin Heyne, Gavin Powel, Intern Mariam Waliki.
No members or guests were present.

Vice Chairperson James Lucas called the meeting to order at 6:30 PM. He noted that a quorum was present.

Welcome and Announcements

James explained the use of the consent calendar to streamline the meeting business: Noncontroversial items will be included either for information or decision, and voted on as a whole. If a board member feels there should be more discussion on a particular item, it will be pulled out for discussion.

The board members noted that they appreciated the consent agenda format

6:35 Consent calendar

• For decision: June meeting minutes
• For information: Advocacy Report
• For information: Campaign Restructuring Report
• For information: Communications & Outreach Report
• For information: Development Report
• For information: Annual Dinner Report
• For information: Membership Report
• For information: SR2S Report
• For information: Finance Update
• For decision: Credit Card limit policies
• For decision: Fiscal and Tax Year Alignment
• For decision: Nominating and Board Election Timeline

Motion: Moved by Jeff Selzer, seconded by Ann Jasper, to accept the consent agenda. Passed unanimously.

Board Governance Survey results

Mariam Wakili presented the results of the survey taken by the board. A written document was presented to board members, and Mariam also gave a slide presentation of the results. 10 of 15 board members replied to the survey. Question was raised as to whether this was enough response to be significant; Mariam stated it was.

She also discussed the Carver method of governance, which the board adopted as its model five years ago, but which has not been entirely put into practice. She is working on improvements to the board binder and is working on an onboarding manual for new board members.

Discussion: Policy governance and moving forward

Mariam discussed the Carver model of mission and vision statements, which is included in the material that she handed out. The mission statement has three components: The results (what human needs are to be met); for whom (who is the board responsible to); and the cost or relative worth. Mariam stressed that these factors are ends, and not means. The current mission statement does not meet these criteria.

The vision statement should be a one-sentence statement that describes the clear and inspirational long-term change resulting from the mission. The material handed out includes sample vision statements, some of which reflect the Carver model definition, and some of which do not.

Mariam invited board members to email her with comments on the survey and mission/vision statement criteria.

Board strategy session: Who is our customer? Whom are we serving?

• Statement for response: “We serve all current and potential cyclists in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.”

There was considerable discussion: The larger question discussed was whether we should represent only bicyclists (present and future), or whether our focus should be the welfare of the community as a whole. In summary, proponents of the model of the community as a whole felt that this attitude would get more buy-in from other elements of the community and reduce the “us vs. them” conflicts, benefitting bicyclists more in the long run. Proponents of focusing more on the bicycling community felt that the “larger community” model would diffuse SVBC’s efforts to improve bicycling and detract from the core mission.

A straw poll indicated all but one director present was in favor of the community as a whole concept.

Some comments made:

Are we limiting ourselves too much by specifying bicyclists?
Should we say future rather than potential?
Should we say represent rather than serve?
Should our community include non-cyclists?
Promote improving the community for all, not just cyclists; make roads safer for everyone.
What we serve is our community, not just cycling. Improving cycling improves the community.
Instead of having this war with motorists, can we be for the whole community; neutralize the antagonism.
Serving the community by making bicycling a part of the solution.
Promoting the values and benefits of cycling to improve the community.
The funnel metaphor: We need to promote the big part of the funnel (the community). I.e., the community is improved because of cycling rather than improving the community for cyclists.
We should improve the community by focusing on cycling.

What does a community that has 10% mode share look like?

Secure bike parking
Expensive car parking
Safe roads
Safer transportation
More cycletracks
More green bike lanes
More creative infrastructure
Better health
Increased property values
More respect toward cyclists
More public transportation for bikes
Increased bike share

Next steps: Cement the discussion and frame the outcomes. Then think about the steps to achieve the outcomes and work on a Carver model mission statement.

The 10% list will be posted on basecamp and board members are encouraged to add to it.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:35.

Respectfully submitted,

Anne Fisher
Administrative Manager

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>