The President’s Desk

We’ll be holding an annual/promoters meeting on Saturday, February 18th, 2006, from 9 am to 5 pm.
The meeting will be held in Room 209 in Reynolds Gymnasium on the campus of Wake Forest University, in Winston-Salem, NC.
The room should accommodate around forty to fifty people, and is equipped with white & black boards, overhead projector, and wireless access for laptops.
Thanks to Dr. Michael Berry for acquiring this meeting space for us.

Directions:

From East or West of Winston-Salem;
Take I-40 E/W to Business 40 E/W
Take the N. Cherry St. Exit
N. Cherry St. becomes University Parkway North
Continue on University Parkway North
Cross Coliseum Dr. (pass Lawrence Joel Coliseum is on right)
Cross Deacon Blvd.
Follow University Parkway as it bears left (N. Cherry St. is straight ahead)
Get in left lane.
Turn left across divided median onto Wake Forest Dr.
Continue to T-intersection with Wingate Dr.
Turn left.
Reynolds Gymnasium is first building on left , past tennis courts.
Parking is available on right (in front of gym), and also further ahead on left, just past the gym. There is additional parking available as you continue down Wingate Dr.

download WFU Area Map in pdf form
download WFU Campus Map in pdf form

I’m happy to report that we finally reached a quorum around 11 pm Sunday night. Thanks to all who participated!

Here are our officers for 2006:

President – Drew McCarthy
Vice-President – Wayne Unruh
Secretary – Vicki Lyons
Treasurer – David Poole
SC At Large – Joe Sullivan

As noted earlier, Wayne Unruh, David Pool, and Joe Sullivan were unopposed, and elected by default. The results for the voting between Vicki Lyons and Laura Weislo are noted below.

The following 20 clubs cast votes in the election:

Freewheelers of Spartanburg
Asheville Bicycle Racing Club
Tri-Cyclists
Cross Creek Cycling Club
Southeast Cyclismo
Capital Cycling Club
Sandhills Cycling Club
Boone Velo
Fastcoaching.com
Coastal Carolina Velo
Hearts Racing Club
Ridge Rollers Velo
Paceline Bicycles
Greensboro Velo Club
Raleigh Allstars
Charlotte Sports Cycling
Alamance Burlington Bicycle Club
Greenville Spinners
Rock Hill Bicycle Club
Vic Chisholm Racing

17 votes for Vicki Lyons, 2 votes for Laura Weislo, one abstention.

There has been a lot of (unfocused) discussion about the CCA website, and what it should be. Everyone seems to want more than they are being offered, but that isn’t really a sufficient answer to the question.

It’s normal that a group of such varying interests should have disparate desires. But we’re going to have to start the process of tallying up who wants what, and why, so that we can begin the process of discussing it and constructing it.

I’ve spent a fair amount of time surfing the net, examining other LA’s websites, both for structure, and for content. There are some points of similarity, but not as many as you might think. Some sites are clearly the product of one person. Others show signs of having parts administered by different folks. Some websites have been around for years. Others come and go like sunshine.

Once again, as with other tasks I’ve talked about, this is better taken care of in a collaborative way. Where more folks are invited to the table to contribute their opinions and their efforts. And there are more and better tools for doing this on the web than before. But even the best and easiest of them require more front end work in the design and adminstration than is required when one person runs the show.

If you have an interest in this issue, I invite you to participate. We need input on what information should be on the website, and how it should be organized. We’ll need help in gathering and writing that information. We’ll need help in coding and adminstrating the site.
If you have interest or experience in any of these things, then I encourage you to contact me.
And the more detail that you’re willing to put into your written description of what you’d like to see, or do, the better…

For example, listing all the subjects you’d like to be able to find informational pages about. Or services that you’d like to be able to use. Or examples of things you’ve enjoyed or found useful on other sites. If you’re willing to write down what you want, clearly, completely, and concretely, the more likely that you’ll get it. If you find it difficult and time consuming to do that, it’s correspondingly less likely that folks will take time to code and design those things for placement on the web…

Just for grins and giggles, and so you can see how we rank in comparison to our nearer neighbors, here are some stats:

CCA – 99 clubs (77 USAC/USCF, 16 NCCA, 5 NORBA, 1 USPRO) 1291 Riders (1170 M, 121 F)
NC – 74 clubs (59 USAC/USCF, 12 NCCA, 3 NORBA) 1011 Riders (910 M, 101F)
SC – 25 clubs (18 USAC/USCF, 4 NCCA, 1 USPRO, 2 NORBA) 280 Riders (260 M, 20 F)

VA – 63 clubs (46 USCF/USAC, 15 NCCA, 2 NORBA) 662 Riders (599 M, 63 F)
TN – 36 clubs (29 USCF/USAC, 5 NCCA, 2 NORBA) 276 Riders (256 M, 20 F)
AL – 21 clubs (19 USCF/USAC, 1 NCCA, 1 NORBA) 94 Riders (87 M, 7 F)
GA – 62 clubs (53 USCF/USAC, 5 NCCA, 2 NORBA, 2 USPRO) 425 Riders (380 M, 45 F)
FL – 93 clubs (87 USCF/USAC, 4 NCCA, 1 NORBA, 1 USPRO) 746 Riders (668 M, 78 F)

Here’s where the information gets foggier, and is both more important, and harder, to verify.

The USA Cycling website shows:
NC Clubs = 74 (59 USAC/USCF, 12 NCCA SE, 3 NORBA)
SC Clubs = 25 (18 USAC/USCF, 4 NCCA SE, 1 USPRO, 2 NORBA)

And the available data dumps from USA Cycling are *less* complete and accurate, apparently, than the ones posted on the site…

Here some of the most important metrics we need to track. Which clubs are promoting events? Only clubs that participate in promoting and organizing races are eligible to vote in our association. And only clubs that promote and organize races are entitled to seek sponsorship and place sponsor information on their jerseys…

Right now there are about forty clubs that are eligible to vote. In looking over the records, I see several instances of clubs who are not on the eligible list, but apparently have sponsored teams, which means they might essentially be picking the pockets of the rest of us…

Keeping track of how many clubs we have, how many members they have, and how many events they put on, is a non-trivial task, especially when you include the necessity of keeping up with current contact information. I’ll be happy when I can hand over this task to our secretary (and maybe some helpful backend web gizmos…).

As I said in an earlier post, clubs are the engines that make Association growth possible. Keeping track of their health and progress is crucial in measuring our success.

One of the buzz phrases that is frequently bandied about is “growing the sport.” Like most buzz phrases, its meaning is different for every person that uses it. But I’ll certainly agree that knowing who our rider membership is, and what they are doing, is critically important.
And the more riders we have, doing more events, the better off we’ll be.

The following information is derived from an analysis I ran on the SE USCF Rider database dump from 02/07/2006:

CCA Riders, Age Graded, Gender
Total Riders = 1291 (1170 M, 121 F)
Masters (30+) = 953 (877 M, 76 F)
Elite (23-29) = 176 (154 M, 23 F)
U23 (19-22) = 78 (72 M, 6 F)
Juniors (10-18) = 84 (73 M, 11 F)
Youth (<10) = 0

NC Riders, Age Graded, Gender
Total Riders = 1011 (910 M, 101F)
Masters (30+) = 756 (691 M, 65 F)
Elite (23-29) = 143 (123 M, 20 F)
U23 (19-22) = 63 (57 M, 6 F)
Juniors (10-18) = 50 (45 M, 5 F)
Youth (<10) = 0

SC Riders, Age Graded
Total Riders = 280 (260 M, 20 F)
Masters (30+) = 197 (186 M, 11 F)
Elite (23-29) = 34 (31 M, 3 F)
U23 (19-22) = 15 (15 M, 0 F)
Juniors (10-18) = 34 (28 M, 6 F)
Youth (<10) = 0

CCA Riders, Category Graded
Cat. 1 = 53 (39 M, 14 F)
Cat. 2 = 120 (110 M, 10 F)
Cat. 3 = 287 (263 M, 24 F)
Cat. 4 = 401 (329 M, 72 F)
Cat. 5 = 428 (428 M, 0 F)

This won’t answer the question of which groups we want to support or grow the most…
Or what programs will work to do that…
But it is a snapshot of where we are at the present, and we can use it as a baseline for discussion, and for measuring the success of future programs.

Clubs are the backbone in the grassroots activities of cycling.

The participation of clubs in the association’s business is going to be the key to our association’s success, and the activities of individual clubs are going to be the engines that drive progress in our association. Every club needs to have an active racing team, put on at least one event, have at least one active official, and needs to participate in association meetings and programs. The association only exists as a structure and forum for those clubs to organize and coordinate activities between themselves.

What can the association do to help? It can provide structure, and information, and provide a forum for clubs struggling with similar issues. It can’t generally provide the resources to *fix* a problem. Only to coordinate and combine the efforts of individual clubs. And this work, itself, has to be distributed amongst the members of the association.

For example. I’ve heard a lot of conversation over the years about supporting (fill in the blank) junior/master/women/novice racers. I’ve got no problem with that. But it is best done at the club level, with coordination of programs at the association level. In other words, if you want to support a certain “underprivileged” class of racers, do it successfully at the club level first, and then make efforts to broaden that support by associating with other clubs that share your interests. Past experience has taught me that “top down” programs don’t do as much as people wish they would, or last particularly long. If you can’t develop a successful program at the club level, it isn’t likely that the association can do it for you on the statewide level.

One thing that the association can do is to encourage/require standard formats for events that ensure opportunities to compete for these classes. Examples of this would be class conformity, reduced/capped entry fees, minimum requirements for prize lists & depth of payout, etc. But that effort will only be successful if enough clubs agree to support the standard, and enough riders show up at the races. The association can also act to distribute information about how the most successful clubs operate, so that all can benefit from their knowledge and experience.

It’s more difficult to attempt to “subsidize” class specific programs on a statewide level. The difficulty usually involves what procedure is used to determine which programs or individuals are subsidized, not to mention the non-trivial problem of funding the program. Once again, this is best accomplished at the club level, for example, where clubs use fundraising/sponsorship to reimburse riders for travel expenses, pay for coaching, or provide equipment.

One of the good things about the current situation with our Local Association and USA Cycling, is that we get a rebate for every annual license sold, that comes back to support our programs. That gives us a base income without levying additional fees, and provides us with a direct incentive to sustain and build our membership, by whatever means we think most effective. But it’s important to note that this money, welcome as it is, is not sufficient to pay for the most important resource that our association needs – the interest and time of knowledgeable people who want to further the growth of the sport of cycling. An annual budget of $10K a year isn’t all that much money if you start talking about paying for services…

At the very least, we need to assemble an organization that can function at deciding what to spend that amount of money on, and how to analyze its effectiveness.

We’re not there, yet, but we’re getting closer. I’m hopeful that we’ll have a good turnout for the annual meeting to finish old business, resolve current problems, and begin the work of developing programs for the future.

I’ve fielded more than twenty rider upgrade/downgrade requests since I was given online admin privileges on the USA Cycling website towards the end of January.

Some of these were routine. Others seemed to demonstrate that folks are not terribly clear on how the upgrade process is supposed to work. Part of the problem is that riders are not provided rule books except online. I’ll need to draft and post information about upgrade requirements and procedures.

Another point occurs. The upgrade from Cat. 5 to Cat 4 requires experience in 10 qualifying mass start races, or Local Associations may also establish a policy where upgrade credit is given for taking a sanctioned rider education clinic. This sounds like a good idea, but we don’t have one, and would have to develop one. What do folks think?

The requirements for upgrades are *not* set in stone, they are actually guidelines, except for the part about automatic upgrades (which are a protection against sandbagging). But there is a tendency to request upgrades before meeting all the rulebook guideline requirements. In such cases, it’s important for the rider to list all *relevant* experience (XC/DH MTB and endurance events don’t necessarily indicate strong pack riding skills). It’s also a good idea to include references from other established riders in your club. The intention of categories is *not* to hold people back, but to insure the a safe and equitable level of competition for all riders.

The USA Cycling online system only allows one person to process online upgrade requests. At present, that person is me. There was a fair size backlog in the system when I inherited it, and it took some time to establish what the status of the various cases was.

Chief Referee’s have the authority to let riders ride one category up in their races, with subsequent approval/denial by the upgrading authority. The trick will be to make sure that CR’s understand how this works, and that they make sure to inform me. It’s also been a long standing tradition that certain higher level officials can accept resumes and award upgrades at races. At present, only I, Chips Chapman, and Rey Trevino can approve upgrade requests made to us in person at events. Chips and Rey are required to notify me when they’ve done so, so that I can enter it into the online system. As long as communication lines remain open, this should provide a higher level of service to the riders in our association.

At the end of the Vice-Presidential election process, I tentatively scheduled an promoters/association meeting to be held on January 18th, in Salisbury NC. The purpose of the meeting would be for folks to get together to establish the CCA event schedule for the year, as well as discuss/ratify/adopt bylaws, and generally discuss our goals for the upcoming year.

We had held an annual meeting at a nice facility at the Rowan Public Library year before last. Unfortunately, this facility is popular, and was not available. Hoby Lowe, who lives in Salisbury, is researching alternate possibilities. As a backup, I’ll reserve space in a facility in my hometown of Winston-Salem, NC.

During the Vice-Presidential elections, I announced my intention to modify the remaining officer slate. The following is the body of the email I sent to the eligible club list at the same time that I was collecting email ballots for Vice-President. It’s worth noting that the overall response to this suggestion has been positive.

From: Drew McCarthy Date: January 31, 2006 12:45:48 AM EST
To: CCA Eligible Clubs
Subject: CCA Officer Slate

Hi, again.

As I’m sure you all remember, there was some debate, and a referendum, on the number of officers that we would elect to our board.

The proposal that won in the last referendum was the following:

President, Vice-President, Secretary/Treasurer, NC At Large, SC At Large

At the time that Ken Putnam and I proposed it, that seemed to be the best and simplest solution to our situation. We’ve since had reason to reconsider that, and I’d like to present our reasoning to you, and to get your response.

We started out our proposed board with a goal of having five officers or less. It was made clear to us that SC, being the smaller part of our association, wanted to make sure that it had at least one representative on the board, no matter what. And the number of officers nominated in this election from SC tends to bear out the wisdom of this.

We originally thought that having a SC At Large position would then force us to have an NC At Large position, in balance, and thence constrain us to combine the positions of Secretary & Treasurer, in order to keep the number of officers to five. We did not want to have the possibility of voting deadlocks caused by having an even number of officers.

I now believe these latter assumptions to be erroneous, and wish to rectify them before we proceed further.

The workload on a combined Secretary/Treasurer would be not be equable, and there would not be an easy way of delegating the workload.

And I don’t think there is much point to having an NC At Large position, when the President, Vice-President, Secretary, and Treasurer are most likely to be from NC.

For these reasons, I’d like to propose that we continue our elections with a slate of:

President, Vice-President, Secretary, Treasurer, SC At Large.

We’ve got a little time while the election for Vice-President is being conducted, so I’d like to ask you to take some time to consider this alternative.

Feel free to reply to me individually, or to the list as a whole (reply-all) with your comments.

Thanks again,

Drew McCarthy
President
Carolinas Cycling Association