IMBA: Possible new direction for the MMBA

[Geff]

Thanks for explaining and adding some more insight into the questions being asked and issues discussed.

[Bcar]

From an advocacy perspective, I can tell you that the MMBA needs to survive in order to maintain its clout. The affiliation with IMBA will be just that-- an affiliation. The organization of the new Michigan IMBA chapters will be the ties that bind us to local issues and keep our influence and respect with the DNRE, legislators, Congress, the governor's office, local park managers, etc.

Good to open the discussion.

I agree with johnnyg, this is my main concern. The MMBA has done a grrrreat job working with the DNRE etc. to be a unified voice of mtn biking in MI. I’d hate to take any steps back dealing with the state and local bureaucracy/agencies due to a name or affiliation change, and yes, this is gov't we're talking about so minor changes like a name, can be a step back. Call me selfish, but unless we’re talking about access to national parks (yes im still dreaming!!) my main focus and concern is for MI trails, not so much on the national and international level.

[johnnyg]

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.

[mmba4716]

I've been an MMBA member for 10 years or so. I support MMBA because I believe it represents my mountain bike interests within the MI state government. The local chapters are fine and I'm sure are doing the best they can to improve trail access and build new trails. Working the trails needs to be organized and done locally. But who is camped out in Lansing to ensure that the voices of all Michigan mountain bikers are aggregated and heard when policy and regulation are debated and created? Will the IMBA take over this advocacy? Will they understand and represent what is important to me and other Michigan mountain bike riders? Admittedly, I don't know much about the IMBA, but unless they are on the "inside" in Lansing, I don't hold out much hope for increased trail access or representation within Mi state government. My initial reaction is to keep the current MMBA structure. But I clearly don't understand the motivation and benefits behind this new direction. Tad L. H., Clarkston, Mi

[dirt]

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.

[Geff]

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.

OK. I can buy into that reasoning and can put my support behind this direction with the IMBA. Does the current Advocacy Team have a means to bringing some new into the fold and bringing them up to speed to eventually step up in that role? I know from experience on a separate type of team, that it takes a number of years shadowing and slowly immersing a new addition into the fold, but it is a way to make sure there is knowledgeable sustainability in the direction of the whole.

Didn't even have a clue that financially the MMBA wont be able to operate in a viable manner. As long as IMBA agrees with MMBA's terms of maintaining the "Home Grown" aspect of the organization, then I say go and would look forward to the brave new world.

[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!

One thing i was surprised to find out is that there are only 1300 MMBA members. I thought i read some were there were at least 2200, but obviously i was mistaken, which is really disappointing. I understand now why the current MMBA model is unsustainable and how important new membership is.

Here's a few questions i have:
What kind of time line, if one is even being considered at this point, is the state board discussing for the integration of MMBA Chapters into IMBA? Individual members each have joined at various times through out the year, so if this integration happens within one's current membership will it be updated to be part of IMBA or will that happen once a membership is renewed? If it happens prior to renewal, will there be a year where MMBA chapters actually owe IMBA and risk a temporary negative balance? Also, is it going to be up to individual chapters to join IMBA or will they all be joined at once?

[Geff]

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!

One thing i was surprised to find out is that there are only 1300 MMBA members. I thought i read some were there were at least 2200, but obviously i was mistaken, which is really disappointing. I understand now why the current MMBA model is unsustainable and how important new membership is.

+1!

[Nelg]

Under our current model, 25% of the membership dollar goes to the chapters. Under IMBA, it would be 40%.

State wide activities (advocacy, lobbyists, annual meeting, travel, ...) all cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere. Probably out of the chapter's cut, right?

It would have to come from some place and I'm sure that's how we would make it work. Personally I think the move to send more money back to the chapter level from the state was a mistake since so many chapters are in such strong shape and have greater ability to raise funds.

Coming from a chapter that has tons of forest to build in but not enough volunteers to maintain what we currently have, we are better served by representation at the state level rather than bolstering our bank account.

[dirt]

One thing i was surprised to find out is that there are only 1300 MMBA members. I thought i read some were there were at least 2200, but obviously i was mistaken, which is really disappointing. I understand now why the current MMBA model is unsustainable and how important new membership is.

Here's a few questions i have:
What kind of time line, if one is even being considered at this point, is the state board discussing for the integration of MMBA Chapters into IMBA? Individual members each have joined at various times through out the year, so if this integration happens within one's current membership will it be updated to be part of IMBA or will that happen once a membership is renewed? If it happens prior to renewal, will there be a year where MMBA chapters actually owe IMBA and risk a temporary negative balance? Also, is it going to be up to individual chapters to join IMBA or will they all be joined at once?

There is often confusion, as there are two numbers often referred to when the MMBA membership numbers are quoted. There is Active Members and Estimated numbers. Active is simply the number of current, active numbers. Estimated numbers is a bit different, and is often the number used when we state the size of our organization.

Estimated Members: This is an estimate for the number of actual members based on formulas described in The Non-Profit Membership Toolkit by Robinson. All active and lapsed memberships are included. Individuals and corporate memberships count as one member. Family, Patron, and Benefactor memberships are multiplied by the average Michigan family size (3.1 persons). This is the published MMBA member count.

Lapsed Membership: A count of memberships past-due and set to expire within the next 90 days.

Currently, the MMBA has 1291 active members, and 2206 estimated members.

The only timeline discussions have been that this would NOT happen before the end of the year. The details of membership integration haven't been hammered out, but I assume it would be a mass transition of all memberships to IMBA/MMBA memberships. The details of this will have to be worked out and explained to the membership, if we move forward on this.

[dirt]

Under our current model, 25% of the membership dollar goes to the chapters. Under IMBA, it would be 40%.

State wide activities (advocacy, lobbyists, annual meeting, travel, ...) all cost money, and that money has to come from somewhere. Probably out of the chapter's cut, right?

It would have to come from some place and I'm sure that's how we would make it work. Personally I think the move to send more money back to the chapter level from the state was a mistake since so many chapters are in such strong shape and have greater ability to raise funds.

Coming from a chapter that has tons of forest to build in but not enough volunteers to maintain what we currently have, we are better served by representation at the state level rather than bolstering our bank account.

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.

[inasnit]

Coming from a chapter that has tons of forest to build in but not enough volunteers to maintain what we currently have, we are better served by representation at the state level rather than bolstering our bank account.

Not that I'm suggesting that political representation will be going away (John Gonway has said a few times already that he's not going anywhere), but I'm not sure I understand how state representation is going to help you get volunteers to put hands on tools and help you build trail ?

[utabintarbo]

Coming from a chapter that has tons of forest to build in but not enough volunteers to maintain what we currently have, we are better served by representation at the state level rather than bolstering our bank account.

Not that I'm suggesting that political representation will be going away (John Gonway has said a few times already that he's not going anywhere), but I'm not sure I understand how state representation is going to help you get volunteers to put hands on tools and help you build trail ?

If anything, additional funds will allow you to multiply the efforts of your too-few volunteers by utilizing equipment that will now be able to be rented/purchased.

[smp]

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.

[Tom L.]

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