IMBA: Possible new direction for the MMBA

[Rod]

phone conferences to wrangle over finances, distribution, secretarial issues, ....administrative stuff, etc.

Can you expand on this at all? Is there a list of set items each position is responsible for?

[dauber76]

phone conferences to wrangle over finances, distribution, secretarial issues, ....administrative stuff, etc.

Can you expand on this at all? Is there a list of set items each position is responsible for?

http://www.mmba.org/mmbainfo/about/library

Through that link, you will find much of what the state board does behind the scenes including most of the meeting minutes for the last 10 years. In 2010, most of our time was spend working through the insurance issue in addition to advocacy, membership, financial, and other many details that frankly, with the exception of the advocacy issues, had zero to do with MTB'ing and everything to do with the operation of a 1,000+ member 501(c)3 organization.

[Martin Hall]

Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". Think about this quote for a second and ask yourself, does this quote apply to the MMBA?
I think it does apply; we are trying to handle today’s issues with the way we did it yesterday
Here are 2 reasons why we should consider and I believe move toward an IMBA model.

1. Growing our influence and capabilities with local, state and national land managers, Gaining or improving our seat at the table of decision makers.
Our needs of the association have changed over the last 20 years, it’s not about introducing this crazy sport “Mt. Biking” it’s about carrying a big enough stick to defend what we currently have and expand access to additional landowners who are also being approached by other user groups. The stick begins with local advocates getting involved, sitting through meetings, shaking hands, discussing features and benefits, gaining access, and following through. The stick then moves on to a state level where we represent the greater geographic area, today the MMBA stops there. The IMBA concept brings to bear the resources that the Great Lakes Region, the Nation and the World that IMBA can provide, gaining greater influence to accomplish the greater good.

2. Driving resource efficiency both monetary and human.
Let’s talk about fiscal reality and where the MMBA is squeezed. The cost of running any organization has grown significantly over the past years and there is no reason to believe we will return to lower cost. Think about your health insurance bill, it’s risen between 10% and 25% for each of the last 10 years. Maybe your company didn’t pass on that additional expense to you, but either you paid it or they did. Now think about insuring a group of volunteers, who are given a brief training on the circle of death, and working with hand tools in a crowd, imagine what has happened to that rate. This is just one example of what has happened to almost every operating cost of organizations and the MMBA is no exception. So where does the MMBA’s money come from? Membership, we are funded at about 80% from individual/family/corporate memberships; sure there is an occasional grant for special trail projects etc… but not for operating the organization. So in the MI economy what has happened to our membership dollars? They have gone down. In the 3rd quarter of 2009 we hit 5 year lows, only through herculean efforts by a few chapters to get new members have we grown that number in 2010. Unfortunately, there is not enough growth to outpace the constant growth of expenses.
Year Mbrship
2006 1300
2007 1247
2008 1159
2009 1086
2010 1290

Where does this lead us?
We must operate our organization more efficiently and grow our membership revenues. How? Utilize IMBA’s backroom administration expertise for additional membership generation, membership renewal, merchandise sales & fulfillment, and communication to members. Focus our local and state resources toward advocacy, legislation, trail development, and fun. We might add real value to our members.

How can we fund this?

IMBA Program Funding Split
• 2010 Estimated Membership Revenue $54,500
• 60% Chapters $32,700
• 40% IMBA $21,800

Split to fund state MMBA lobbyist activity
o 2010 Estimated Membership Revenue $54,500
o 30% Chapters $16,350 (about $10,000/yr returned now from MMBA)
o 30% State $16,350 (lobbyist cost is about $15,000/yr)
o 40% IMBA $21,800
o State specific (member voluntary) donation of an extra $5.00 per membership to fund MI specific advocacy activity. 50% participation = $3,250. Set this up through IMBA as a separate fund of MI members so the funds come back to MI specifically. We don't need this donation plan to make it work, but the more money we can return to chapters, the more trails we can develop.

From this simple calculation it looks like we can make the funding work.

IMBA, Good People or Evil Empire?
Over the course of the past 2 years I have had several opportunities to met and interact with IMBA personnel, especially the ones with responsibility here in MI. and the Great Lakes Region. This past May I attended the IMBA World Summit in Augusta, GA where I had the opportunity to interact with the complete staff from the ED, Mike Van Abel, down to the people registering participants. They were professional in every aspect, were extremely approachable and willing to engage in open dialogue, ran a great summit program and appear to run IMBA as a member driven organization. While their presence in the Great Lakes region is smaller compared to the Midwest or Southeast they are committed to creating that presence as dictated by membership growth. In my humble estimation they are far more Good people than evil empire.

Next Steps:
The Board of Directors of the MMBA is elected to represent the interest of all members of the MMBA. We will take into consideration all members, not just the vocal minority of forum posters. We appreciate your input, ideas, criticisms and congratulations. As we work through the details and recommend a future course for the MMBA we will keep you informed and hope that you can and will support whatever recommendation we present

Thanks and please, stay positive!

Martin Hall
At Large Director

[scat silvurz]

wow, that's a very well thought out post. Well done.

[Geff]

wow, that's a very well thought out post. Well done.

Absolutely!

[Di_bear]

wow, that's a very well thought out post. Well done.

Absolutely!

I third that. I'm impressed, Martin!

[Purple is a Fruit]

Well verbalized Martin. The way you've posted and broken it down, it makes a lot of sense. I don't think that anyone argues the point that we need to continue the State level of advocacy and representation. Using the tools IMBA makes available to assist with the administrative monotony and allowing us as an organization to utilize our volunteers in the manner they find most rewarding sounds like a win-win situation. The individual chapters continue with the grassroots recruitment of memberships, trail building, meeting with land managers, etc while the chapters continue to have a some representation at the State level to advocate for all chapter's collective interests and coordinating activities between/within chapters.

The proposed breakdown to fund the state level lobbyist activity still shows a fairly significant increase in contributions going back to the chapters compared to the current model. So, even though we would be paying IMBA the $$ to cover the administrative tasks, the organization as a whole should become re-energized by allowing those passionate individuals who have been sucked into the mire of the administrative BS to get back to what they are really enjoy doing.

Based upon my simple math and using your breakdown, for my individual $30 membership: $12 goes to IMBA, $9 to my local chapter, and $9 for making sure that my ability to enjoy my recreational past time is protected and allowed to flourish at the state level. Though I would prefer most of the money stay local and all of it stay in the State, I understand that what that $12 to IMBA provides is not only management of a membership database and insurance coverage, but most importantly frees our leadership to continue with what they do best: advocate for and advance the ability to partake in our common recreational activity.

[dennismurphy]

Martin's post is superb!

What is clearly evident is that the IMBA model brings a massive economy of scale. For them to take on 1000 to 2000 additional names to manage as "members" is a drop in the bucket - and that doesn't even factor in the insurance aspect

Administrative aspects outsourced
Local advocacy maintained
Opportunity to maintain statewide links for a statewide united voice

Seems more WIN than lose

[redwoods22]

I don't THINK this has been addressed yet, but will my membership fees increase under the IMBA merger scenario? Also who would have control over setting membership fees?

[Martin Hall]

From the IMBA membership page on their website. http://www.imba.com/membership

Membership Categories

Individual and Family

Individual Memberships start at just $30 ($20 for Youth U23). When you join IMBA you become part of a 30,000 strong network of riders that support our sport and are stewards of the environment. Plus members are entitled to great benefits.

Family Memberships start at $50 and entitle all family members in a household to membership benefits.

As for who makes the membership fee decision, I do not know but would suspect that the executive management team recommends to the board any changes to the rate, the board then approves or rejects the recommendation.

[mbmoehl]

Can someone verify who gets 40% and who gets 60%? I thought from some of the first few posts that IMBA took 60%. I tried checking the two links in the original post but the articles don't specify. If in deed IMBA takes 60%, then we need to do the math again and see where that leaves us. If the chapters get the 60% as Martin shows, I think its a no brainier to partner with IMBA.

[bike lover]

For the record, I'm not opposed to this at all. I definitely see that there would be benefits to having IMBA run our day-to-day operations. However, I think there needs to be more clarity in our decision process. For example, mbmoehl is correct, according to the IMBA, it gets 60% and the 40% is returned to the individual chapters. Now, how is that going to be distributed? Is each chapter going to get a representative 40% of its membership, i.e., if the SE chapter has 100 members it gets $1200 and if the Northern chapter has 50 members, does it get $600? Or, is it a community pot with each chapter gets a share, like is seemingly the current thought?

Don't forget there will be some hidden costs to this as well. For example, since we will be part of an international organization, will we have to send voting members to a national convention every year? If so, each chapter would have to send one to have its voice heard (unless IMBA allows proxy votes, in which case one delegate can be the proxy for the remaining chapters).


Quoting Martin (and changing the figures):
Getting back to the 60/40 split, the numbers listed in Martin's post look like this:
IMBA Program Funding Split
• 2010 Estimated Membership Revenue $54,500
• 60% IMBA $32,700
• 40% Chapters $21,800

Split to fund state MMBA lobbyist activity
o 2010 Estimated Membership Revenue $54,500
o 20% Chapters $10,900 (about $10,000/yr returned now from MMBA)
o 20% State $10,900 (lobbyist cost is about $15,000/yr)
o 60% IMBA $32,700
o State specific (member voluntary) donation of an extra $5.00 per membership to fund MI specific advocacy activity. 50% participation = $3,250. Set this up through IMBA as a separate fund of MI members so the funds come back to MI specifically. We don't need this donation plan to make it work, but the more money we can return to chapters, the more trails we can develop.
____________________
end quote

Keep in mind that's barring other potential revenue sources. For example, if someone from one of our chapters buys an IMBA item, do we get a split?

Also, the 60/40 is what the IMBA has listed as a split. Perhaps we can negotiate a larger percentage, like reversing the percentage listed so that Martin's numbers can work. We may have the clout with being a larger organization to do such.

These are just a couple of quick thoughts. If we can get the numbers, and agreement to % splits and such worked out, I agree with going forward. Heck as a patroller, I think it'd be one less fee for me...

For the record, I would absolutely love to become a member of the board, but as like everyone else, I can not commit a certain amount of time. It made riding very difficult for me this year and I am leaving my Kiwanis club for next year, of which I was a board member for the past 5 years, due to not being able to make meetings.

[dennismurphy]

right now each chapter only gets money per membership
Under IMBA that would be the same- just a bigger percentage

There would be no "community pot" under the IMBA model as I see it since there wouldn't be a "state" IMBA/MMBA except as we choose to create that association outside a legal bond

[Indytrekracer]

Just some thoughts from down here in Indiana

It seems like the age old problem of groups being to large for some things and too small for others. National groups can't build trails at your local park. Local groups can't lobby Washington. State wide groups are caught in the middle.

It seems like MMBA has strong chapters that are tied together under the MMBA banner to leverage insurance, 501 (c) (3), and admin costs and efforts.

But there are other conflicts that cause issues. All the local riders want the membership sent out to the local groups, until an advocacy issue that requires state or national horse power. But the State and National organizations are strapped for resources because too much money is going to the local groups.

I have always pushed HMBA to not count on the basic membership fee for anything more than basic operation of the organization. We just paid $5000 for an annual IRS audit. That's the cost of doing business. Add in grant applications, membership, insurance, etc.. and we are lucky if there is any thing left for trail tools. The funds that get stuff done come from grants, the Brown County Breakdown, and donations.

So, what if you keep the state wide group as an organization separate from the local chapters. Your local chapters could become IMBA/local clubs. The local clubs get their membership and admin covered through IMBA.

You would then ask people to join two separate groups. Their local IMBA chapter and the State wide MMBA. The State wide MMBA would then be freed up to focus solely on statewide issues and properties and the local chapters wouldn't have to roll up fiances to the state wide group.

This then sets up a scenario where we have IMBA Midwest-South (MI,IN,KY,OH) Between the four states IMBA may be able to get enough members to pay for some staff in the region. Local clubs could be less constrained by the state wide groups and still have the insurance and admin accounted for, and the state wide groups could focus on State wide issues.

Paul Arlinghaus
President, HMBA

[bike lover]

right now each chapter only gets money per membership
Under IMBA that would be the same- just a bigger percentage

There would be no "community pot" under the IMBA model as I see it since there wouldn't be a "state" IMBA/MMBA except as we choose to create that association outside a legal bond

Smaller percentage, larger amount? Are dues still $20? I forget. If so, chapters, at 25% receive $5 and under the IMBA fee of $30 and 20% they receive $6.

The one thing that strikes me is there would still be a projected shortfall in paying for the lobbyist over $4k/year (using Martin's corrected numbers). Is there a plan to make up the difference? I believe the current thought is to continue the service. Do we get a portion of IMBA merchandise sold in our chapter? Can we negotiate a different percentage? Will the IMBA pay for the lobbyist?

Again, I support this, the details matter though before I would vote/approve of it. Going from one unstainable structure to another does not help.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean by "outside of a legal bond." There would have to be a contract or something within each chapters charter that would require the chapters to funnel money to the state level. Otherwise, the chapters could just not send money that way.