# IMBA's New Chapter 2.0 Program



## MartyW (Dec 13, 2004)

Just wondering what everyone thinks of the new Chapter 2.0 program. We're still digesting it..https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6mShJWKrHPgSnB5d19aSy1BM2V1SnoyQkQ2NTdXaGF3bHNR/view?usp=sharing


----------



## Cotharyus (Jun 21, 2012)

I personally wonder how many members chapters will lose over the fee increase. I know a lot of people who thought IMBA was a good idea in theory, but too expensive in practice. I know of at least two local clubs whose missions are very much in line with IMBA, but they keep all their dues (which are much lower) and manage to make it enough to get any materials they need to do trail work or improvement. Of course, they don't necessarily have insurance....


----------



## MartyW (Dec 13, 2004)

If I'm reading this right, the Chapters are required to use the base insurance plan that IMBA supports but the premium is coming out the Chapters 40%. Plus additional riders to the policy. Good thing they raised the rate to $49, otherwise there's be no money left for the local club.
And we still have the Family membership question. If a family of four joins at some yet undisclosed amount, does this count as one or four members for the purposes of insurance. 
With online services like Wild Apricot available, we'll be doing some serious number crunching over the next couple of weeks.


----------



## RYNOFREERIDE (Feb 26, 2004)

The insurance that comes with this program is for hand tools only, nothing mechanized. Not enough for most groups. You can buy mechanized coverage if your chapter wants to. I wonder how many clubs will opt out? I know our chapter's board is voting soon on whether to stay or go and it looks like we will most likely be leaving. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

There are 4 trail groups in my city, each for a separate trail system in their own park. Of the 4, three are primarily mountain bike focused and all work with the 4th, who loan us hand tools and machinery for our trail work. Some have suggested that the city's mountain bike community needs IMBA representation, but frankly, that would simply be a drain of financial resources from our trail building and advocacy work, with few tangible benefits. What's the purpose of IMBA membership these days? Why should anyone join?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I don't see any value for us in that, but I was glad to read it. I have a hard time imagining that IMBA will be able to provide a range of Subject Matter Experts efficiently to us here in Montana. 

We had a very good ARD here, who took his own initiative to convince IMBA of the need. Montana has always been good for a pretty photo or an access alert when Region 1 restricts MTB access, but we're too rural for them to have ever really have a presence. Our new ARD was able to do a lot of valuable collaborative work and as a result got quite a few local organizations to sign on as chapters. After they eliminated his position, I continued to see IMBA's national social media promoting the work he did as their own good work on the ground in Montana, which rankles a bit. I'm not sure where the groups here are headed because my own group is a collaborator but never signed on with IMBA. There is a real desire for a regional coalition, and if I had to guess I see them forming an independent regional entity along the lines of Evergreen.


----------



## SuperStang (Nov 19, 2014)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gigantic again.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Gigantic said:


> Some have suggested that the city's mountain bike community needs IMBA representation


What's the history of that in your region? Pretty sure the IMBA site still lists a local chapter, though it's suspect. (It lists two different acronyms for the chapter on the same page, one of which I believe uses the name of the city, the other the corner of the state.)


----------



## Loren_ (Dec 3, 2006)

After a first read, personal thoughts:
- I don't have any issues with remote subject matter experts or paying a fee for access as needed.
- The increase in membership rates is concerning, but expected. We've worked hard to achieve good year over year growth, and this will negate a year's work but we'll recover.
- The mandatory insurance is concerning. Through careful shopping, no claim history, and a regulatory environment where state law protects our trailworkers from liability on most of our trails, our current insurance is significantly less expensive than the proposal.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

MartyW said:


> If I'm reading this right, the Chapters are required to use the base insurance plan that IMBA supports but the premium is coming out the Chapters 40%. Plus additional riders to the policy. Good thing they raised the rate to $49, otherwise there's be no money left for the local club.
> And we still have the Family membership question. If a family of four joins at some yet undisclosed amount, does this count as one or four members for the purposes of insurance.
> With online services like Wild Apricot available, we'll be doing some serious number crunching over the next couple of weeks.


As neighbor chapters, we should do some of the homework together.

Good point on Wild Apricot. I've seen it before but wondered where's the safety. Wondered about how well the open source Civi is being developed vs the risk of Wild Apricot not making it after a significant investment.

I'm concerned about April 1 stated as the know more date. WI DNR is forcing us to do work very early and late at our biggest trail complex. We'll need insurance issues settled prior.

I'd sure like to know a lot more about trail fund going back to chapters, and if "Chapter 2.0" means IMBA will mean less of IMBA's time spent with poster child and favorite child areas.

Recognizing so much money lost from Subaru, I have to think why not get out of Boulder? There are places near trails, airports and highways with much lower costs. I also wonder about Trail Solutions.

Knowing a lot more before April will be very important.


----------



## ACree (Sep 8, 2004)

It's good that they're trying something. As someone from an area where the local org is happily non IMBA, I don't see anything that would change that. An insurance program that excludes power tools would absolutely not fly in the PNW.

I have supported other regional groups whose work I admired that were IMBA chapters. I would hope that my contribution to such groups would be seen as a contribution and not a membership that required a per member insurance charge. Along that line, if an individual 'joins' more than one chapter, would IMBA charge a per member insurance fee for each membership?


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

bitflogger said:


> I have to think why not get out of Boulder?


And give up that Boulder lifestyle? Not going to happen. Regional, home grown advocacy is the way forward imho.


----------



## JAGI410 (Apr 19, 2008)

As a non-IMBA group now, I think 2.0 is intriguing. The insurance part was always our hang up. Too hard/expensive to find coverage that suited our needs. We'd be giving IMBA 60% of our member dues and not really getting much back. Well now if they want to take 60% plus $7 per member, and we get insurance in return, that may be cheaper overall. The non-machine trailwork exclusion is a bummer, but it's not a deal breaker, as those who would be using the machines have their own agreements/waivers with the land managers.


----------



## SunUpRanch (Mar 7, 2016)

JAGI410 said:


> As a non-IMBA group now, I think 2.0 is intriguing. The insurance part was always our hang up. Too hard/expensive to find coverage that suited our needs. We'd be giving IMBA 60% of our member dues and not really getting much back. Well now if they want to take 60% plus $7 per member, and we get insurance in return, that may be cheaper overall. The non-machine trailwork exclusion is a bummer, but it's not a deal breaker, as those who would be using the machines have their own agreements/waivers with the land managers.


According to the presentation:

"Removal of heavy machinery from excluded activities list - $500 premium"


----------



## JAGI410 (Apr 19, 2008)

Heck that's small change compared to the quote of $5000/year that McKay gave us.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

mbmtb said:


> What's the history of that in your region? Pretty sure the IMBA site still lists a local chapter, though it's suspect. (It lists two different acronyms for the chapter on the same page, one of which I believe uses the name of the city, the other the corner of the state.)


The original chapter dissolved in a spat of infighting, rogue trail building and squandered opportunities that nearly cost the entire community trail access, according to what I've been told by former members that I work with, riding and building trails. The other chapter never really seemed to get off the ground. They had some modest results in one smaller suburban trail system a few years ago, but haven't been seen or heard from, since. I'm aquatinted with the principals of the newer organization, but have yet to see them at a trail building event that I've hosted, organized or participated in. We've been quite successful with our advocacy in working with the city in our trail systems, as well as working with each other, (I volunteer with all 4 trail organizations here in Philadelphia), but our outreach to the wider mountain biking community could use some improvement; to the average rider, we are just anonymous and mysterious trail gnomes who magically fix the trails and build new singletrack when nobody is looking. One of my goals for the season is to improve our out reach and bring more awareness to riders about our activity in mission, building a local advocacy group in the process. I am so far not convinced that IMBA is necessary to achieve that goal.


----------



## leeboh (Aug 5, 2011)

^^^ Out reach for your group? Host a trail day/ride/food event. Or combine all three.


----------



## MartyW (Dec 13, 2004)

???


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

Sorry, that was a distraction. 

But it's sort of key to the question "what is the value to be IMBA chapter vs not", and does this 2.0 concept change anything.

Does it gain you useful members (either $$$ or time spent either advocating or digging)? Does 2.0 increase that?

It clearly gains you insurance, though some groups already have that.

Does the alliance with other groups give you a stronger voice at the table? How does the proposed RD change affect that?


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

leeboh said:


> ^^^ Out reach for your group? Host a trail day/ride/food event. Or combine all three.


We do that regularly, actually. we've built nearly 3 miles of trail last season, in addition to maintaining about 80 within the city. However, when you have a city of 1.5 million people and a metropolitan area with nearly 5 million, communities become decentralized and tribal. We've been able to reach a fraction of the enthusiasts, but there are other subgroups who've either chosen to not be involved due to past politics or the sunday riders who don't eat, sleep and breathe riding, for instance...


----------



## Visicypher (Aug 5, 2004)

Evasive - quite a few of us got together after the loss of Eric. We bounce ideas around as often as we can.


----------



## Clayncedar (Aug 25, 2016)

Gigantic said:


> The original chapter dissolved in a spat of infighting, rogue trail building and squandered opportunities that nearly cost the entire community trail access, according to what I've been told by former members that I work with, riding and building trails. The other chapter never really seemed to get off the ground. They had some modest results in one smaller suburban trail system a few years ago, but haven't been seen or heard from, since. I'm aquatinted with the principals of the newer organization, but have yet to see them at a trail building event that I've hosted, organized or participated in. We've been quite successful with our advocacy in working with the city in our trail systems, as well as working with each other, (I volunteer with all 4 trail organizations here in Philadelphia), but our outreach to the wider mountain biking community could use some improvement; to the average rider, we are just anonymous and mysterious trail gnomes who magically fix the trails and build new singletrack when nobody is looking. One of my goals for the season is to improve our out reach and bring more awareness to riders about our activity in mission, building a local advocacy group in the process. I am so far not convinced that IMBA is necessary to achieve that goal.


The greatest respect goes to the trail gnomes who carefully watch over their trail.

Those closeknit local trailbuilder groups are who keep everyone else riding in many places.

That said, the PMBA-SEPTR train wreck was a real embarrassment for the mountain biking community in as large a city as Philly.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Visicypher said:


> Evasive - quite a few of us got together after the loss of Eric. We bounce ideas around as often as we can.


I get Ian's emails. I'm glad to see the interest in continued support and a regional coalition.


----------



## iceboxsteve (Feb 22, 2012)

evasive said:


> There is a real desire for a regional coalition, and if I had to guess I see them forming an independent regional entity along the lines of Evergreen.


As a New Englander I always distrust large groups. I believe orgs can get too big and tied down with bureaucratic BS. Regional groups, in my opinion, are much more valuable. Evergreen being your closest. But I've seen it here with NEMBA and VMBA (some would argue this). I've heard why from the top people, but it still perplexes me that SORBA went to IMBA (though they are still their own entity in some respects).

That being said, an umbrella national org does have benefits. Mainly in that some fights are national in nature.

Still I value regional, local, groups and the good they can do.

How to reconcile it all is a tough question.

Best of luck to Montana, from what I can tell it deserves better.


----------



## bsieb (Aug 23, 2003)

My Chapter will be re-evaluating our membership at our next meeting. We realize that we will be stuck with an expensive IMBA mandated 501.c.3 that is of no benefit to us. Socks, t-shirts, and cheerleading, are all available from the Drunkcyclist. without the organizational commitment.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

Part of my reasoning for wanting the chapter program was that I felt the IMBA staff in Boulder were out of touch with mountain bikers across the country. The Chapter program put IMBA in a position where they needed to listen to local groups. Unfortunately the IMBA Board remained detached and allow Mike Van Able to continue to ignore the Chapters concerns about insurance, Trail Solutions, IMBA Trail Fund, wilderness, etc...

But the Chapter Program did its job. It did not allow IMBA to survive without listening to its members and Chapters. Its unfortunate that the old guard held on as long as it could, which makes things more painful in the short term than they needed to be.

But the Chapter Program did bring down the old guard and forced the IMBA board to actually put some effort into IMBA. Electing Dave Wiens is a good start. Dave is one of us (rider, trail builder, and local advocate).

I have spoken to Dave several times since he stepped up as IMBA board president. I am confident that he understands the concerns of local chapters and the need for for the culture of IMBA to change.

We (HMBA) plan to go to the 40/60 split and continue to work with IMBA to help it become a better and stronger organization.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

iceboxsteve said:


> That being said, an umbrella national org does have benefits. Mainly in that some fights are national in nature.
> 
> Still I value regional, local, groups and the good they can do.


a national group does have some value, but as we've seen with the split with the Sustainable Trails Coalition, it is becoming increasingly unclear what IMBA's national role actually is, apart from struggling to maintain the status quo. Similarly, it's become less certain what the benefits are for both individuals and regional organizations. Discounts and deals? Any savvy web shopper can find better and frankly, that does nothing to help the local bike shops that support our sport and trail building efforts. the other discounts are negligible, although if I was in the market for a new Subaru, I might consider a membership.

For regional/local organizations, they require a substantial financial commitment and give in return, a heavy bureaucratic burden. Our trail friends groups, through our affiliation with the City of Philadelphia, Fairmount Park Commission and Philadelphia Parks & Rec, have our liability insurance covered, we have trail building courses courtesy of the Friends of the Wissahickon Trails' Team Leader Program, with courses on machine usage, ecology, sustainable trail building practices and so forth. By working closely and collaborating amongst 4 different user groups in 3 parks, we're able to raise a volunteer force of hundreds of trail users for building and maintaining our multi use trails. Instead of membership fees and the overhead that goes along with it, we accept donations directly to the Friends Groups (Friends of the Wissahickon does have a membership and permanent, paid employees, of the other 3, Belmont Plateau Trails Alliance & Friends of the Creshiem Trails have an all volunteer force, and the Philly Pump Track has one paid employee to manage & supervise the track during riding season, the rest of the labor to maintain the pump track and associated flow trails, is entirely volunteer based.

For us, even if the 3 cycling oriented trails groups were to join forces, it would be an incredible financial burden that would take a considerable amount of funding away from our trail work and add on top of that, a larger onus to building and maintaining membership, to keep the money coming in. We'd also need membership meetings and officers who would, in addition to their duties with trails, be tasked with more overhead and time dedicated to organizing the "club." There might be some benefit in being able to communicate with mountain biking aficionados who are current IMBA members and raising awareness for our trail building efforts advocacy, but we're managing that just fine already, growing at a steady and sustainable, albeit slow, rate that's just fine for our needs. IMBA really needs to make a better case about how membership will improve the status of local trails groups and individual cyclists and show value beyond a discount card for membership.


----------



## indytrekracer (Feb 13, 2004)

*Organize based on the place you build trails.*

Here's another way to look at how your local group should organize.

At the end of the day we are trying to advocate for access and then typically to build/maintain the trails on public land. So its important to organize your group in the way that works best with the land managers you have to work with. Each land manger is unique. Some land managers are open to mountain biking and you can focus on building. In other cases you will have to work/fight for access. In some cases, it may be advantageous to be a local group, in others a regional or national affiliation may be helpful.

I am not aware of any trail builders who just thought on their own that it would be great to form a 501 (c) (3), get insurance, and be part of a regional or National organization.

The reason local advocates and trail builders do these things is because they are required to do them by land managers/local politicians.

Often we look for the one right way to do things. One group is successful as a loosely organized group that works directly with a land manager and concludes that is the only way to do it. Another group has to form a 501(c), get insurance, hire a lobbyist, and work with a National organization to be successful. At the end of the day, there is not a single correct way to organize.

One of the big mistakes we make is to force how one particular group was successful on other groups.

And in some areas, it may take more than one organization to be successful. What is needed in an organization to be successful with your local National Forest may not work well with a near by county park system.

If you can build trails as a park volunteer, under their insurance, then by all means do so. But if they suddenly require you to have insurance and to be a formal group, you may have to become more organized.

Also while being just a local club may be easier upfront, it can present challenges when you are faced with an advocacy challenge with State or National Implications. So what happens when your local trail is at risk due to a Wilderness proposal or a State Nature Preserve Proposal, or a mining contract, etc... Is your loosely organized group going to be able to figure out how to fight a battle way over your Park manager's world with out side help?

To really be successful we need to cover all the bases. Having IMBA chapters in you State, allows for the local chapters to act as official Local group that can call in IMBA when needed. In cases where locals are allowed to operate as park volunteers, they can do so. Its is smart for the local groups and the bigger more organized chapters to be on the same page and supportive of each other. You never know when you may need each other's help.


----------



## trailmap (Jan 11, 2005)

I am more or less of the same mind as indytrekracer's post #28. I've been doing MTB advocacy for 25 years, and it seems like that beyond very local managers (the city parks type stuff), being affiliated with a larger organization makes all the difference in the world regarding getting listened to or not. Great relationships with the local folks for a state forest or something can mean nothing when some edict gets put out at the capital. The power of such affiliations can't be underestimated.

That doesn't have to conflict with iceboxsteve's point that smaller groups can get more done. Steve is right. But I never saw the IMBA affiliation as being some sort of top down management of what the chapters were doing. They are just providing the resources.

My reading of the plan is that you aren't required to buy the IMBA insurance; you can still get your own if you want to. But I believe that one of the biggest things IMBA heard on all the listening conference calls was to find a way to bring back an insurance program.

It sounds like there is some way to get the power equipment added to the insurance. But that is definitely a concern of mine.

I think the price increase will be a problem, though. But not sure how to get around it with all the loss of the Subaru funding.

A couple of responses to Gigantic:



Gigantic said:


> a national group does have some value, but as we've seen with the split with the Sustainable Trails Coalition, it is becoming increasingly unclear what IMBA's national role actually is, apart from struggling to maintain the status quo


.

I never really understood the issue with the STC. The goals are the same with both organizations (more riding), with different approaches as allowed by their respective non-profit status (e.g. https://www.imba.com/joint-statement-imba-and-sustainable-trails-coalition-stc)



Gigantic said:


> For us, even if the 3 cycling oriented trails groups were to join forces, it would be an incredible financial burden that would take a considerable amount of funding away from our trail work and add on top of that, a larger onus to building and maintaining membership, to keep the money coming in. We'd also need membership meetings and officers who would, in addition to their duties with trails, be tasked with more overhead and time dedicated to organizing the "club."


I am not sure what the nature of the "3 cycling oriented trails groups" are, but in my experience, becoming a chapter has lessened the non-riding non-building aspects of my local club. Less bureaucracy/overhead. Of course, if you don't have "members" now, then yes, that is more work, but most clubs are organized as membership organizations. It is true that in a lot of places access comes easy. But in my experience (as I stated above), the only way to overcome anti-bike sentiment and get trails opened (or to add more trails) is to be organized, which usually means a membership-based organization. If you don't have those problems, then you don't need an IMBA chapter. But again, I'd be worried about efforts by others above the local managers giving you permission to ride/built potentially causing problems in the future.


----------



## sbmtb (Jun 21, 2008)

I brought our small IMBA Club (200 members 5 trails) into the IMBA Chapter program in 2012 and am now advocating we leave the program. 

The insurance debacle, members frustrated by Boulder screwing up renewals, a pathetic CRM and little real support from IMBA have been problems since we entered the chapter program. Now everything we have seen indicates that we will be required to buy the IMBA insurance that costs more than we currently pay for insurance. Add to that the increase in the minimum dues with the new program. When the dues increased the last time I had members ask why our club was raising the dues… 

Last year I advocated we stay, this year no more.


----------



## trailmap (Jan 11, 2005)

sbmtb said:


> Now everything we have seen indicates that we will be required to buy the IMBA insurance that costs more than we currently pay for insurance.


I don't know all the answers, which is why I will call into one of the conference calls IMBA is holding with chapter leaders to get feedback on the new program. But in response to some questions from our chapter about insurance, Bruce Alt responded (in part): "Right now we have to see how many chapters will elect the new coverage and if that will be enough to offer a national program."

This leads me to believe that it is not required that the chapter purchase the insurance offered by IMBA. It would be something a chapter would "elect".

It would be ironic if chapters decided to de-chapterize because IMBA would again be offering an insurance program, after a lot of folks previously (year or two ago) re-considered chapter participation after the previous insurance program was dropped (because rates were going to triple due to claims). Sounds like a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## old_MTBer (Feb 16, 2014)

trailmap said:


> It would be ironic if chapters decided to de-chapterize because IMBA would again be offering an insurance program


I'll state up front, we are an independent IMBA affiliate club so we don't have a dog in this hunt.

From what I read in the document linked in the first post, dropping chapter status cuts your club out of the proposed insurance program. On page 13 of the presentation:
*Appendix A: CHAPTER INSURANCE
Limited only to IMBA Chapters as a chapter benefit; clubs not eligible.*

I can't help but think that IMBA could get a better negotiating position by opening up the insurance to clubs. That would give them a larger pool of participants to get better pricing. But IMBA is pushing the chapter program.

There are a number of posts discussing clubs dropping chapter status. That indicates the program may shrink instead of grow.


----------



## MartyW (Dec 13, 2004)

Metro is going to stay as an IMBA Chapter for the short term at least. No, we don't need the name recognition with our local land managers (20 years has built a lot of trust), but IMBA has done so much in the past and hopefully can move forward to bring our sport to even bigger and better things. We are definitely concerned about the rate jump to $49 for a single (Milwaukeeans are famously frugal), so we will be re-evaluating the decision as the time passes.


----------



## MartyW (Dec 13, 2004)

News from IMBA is that they are not offering an insurance program....


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

MartyW said:


> News from IMBA is that they are not offering an insurance program....


I saw that same time our agent gave a reason for 145% increase in premiums that didn't add up. Our chapter growth was closer to 78% than 145%.

We'll be at the bike show in Madison this weekend if you or associates which to stop by and discuss any of this.


----------



## RYNOFREERIDE (Feb 26, 2004)

Our Chapter voted to opt out of the IMBA Chapter system. We were one of the Beta groups and we were one of the largest chapters. We weighed what we were paying out to be part of the Chapter system and what we were getting back and we made the decision to leave. We started taking in our independent membership renewals on March 1st and it seems to be going well. It was easy for us because we already had a 501c3 in place before we merged and after the insurance fiasco we have been buying our own insurance, so we had nothing holding us back. Only thing we had to do was set up our own membership fulfillment software. We've had many other chapters in our region contact us about leaving the IMBA Chapter program, but they are smaller groups than ours and the lack of a 501c3 and a membership fulfillment process are holding them back from becoming independent again. I'm guessing over time as these clubs have time to develop and build some of these things, they will leave the Chapter program. We are able to offer our cheapest membership level at $30 and still are taking in more money than we would from the $49 IMBA membership share. 

We still support the mission of IMBA and will continue to have good relations with them, but we made the decision we felt best for us.


----------



## SunUpRanch (Mar 7, 2016)

We recently gave IMBA our 60 day notice to terminate our chapter charter agreement along with the offer to renegotiate its terms during this 60 day period if IMBA desires. The latter was to help IMBA develop a new template for former chapters that wish to continue supporting IMBA on mutually agreeable terms as well as our desire to support IMBA's mission and to offer a convenient method for our members who wish to support both entities. We have yet to hear back from IMBA on whether they have interest if figuring out how we could mutually work together moving forward.

Our decision has more to do with our mission - we're a *bicycle* advocacy organization with mountain biking only part of what we do - and the negative optics in our local road bike community of over half of their membership dues supporting a national mountain bike advocacy entity rather than local advocacy concerns important to them. We became a chapter primarily for IMBA's membership fulfillment capabilities but after slightly more than a year in the program, found the cost - lack of support by our local road bike community as well as the dollars flowing to Boulder - too high for the service we were receiving. We were, in effect becoming a mountain bike exclusive entity, our board recognized this fact and made the change.

We also started taking independent memberships and renewals on March 1st - primarily from road cyclists. In the first ten days, our overall membership has gone from 2 to 20% road cyclists and this will increase as the word spreads. We are currently exploring automating membership fulfillment, but fortunately we're small enough to manually perform this function in the interim.

We too had our 501(c)3 designation and weren't falling under IMBA's group exemption. 501(c)3 status is not as onerous to obtain for smaller non-profits as it used to be with the introduction of the 1023 EZ. https://www.irs.gov/uac/newsroom/ne...x-exempt-status-easier-most-charities-qualify


----------



## Woodman (Mar 12, 2006)

Any updates? I learned yesterday from a large chapter east that the 2.0 was rejected by chapters and IMBA is back to the drawing board.


----------



## mbmtb (Nov 28, 2013)

SunUpRanch said:


> We recently gave IMBA our 60 day notice to terminate our chapter charter agreement along with the offer to renegotiate its terms during this 60 day period if IMBA desires.


You surely have a more inside perspective than many of us! I'd love to hear what you think the right thing is going forward.

Looks like SDMTB and CORBA wrote some very public letters on the topic.


----------



## RYNOFREERIDE (Feb 26, 2004)

Some decent size chapters in neighboring states to us are leaving IMBA chapter program or heavily considering it from what I hear. I'm sure we'll start to see more of it soon. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## tbmaddux (May 22, 2012)

Woodman said:


> Any updates? I learned yesterday from a large chapter east that the 2.0 was rejected by chapters and IMBA is back to the drawing board.


Salem Area Trail Alliance (SATA) just announced their withdrawal from IMBA.


----------



## SunUpRanch (Mar 7, 2016)

mbmtb said:


> You surely have a more inside perspective than many of us! I'd love to hear what you think the right thing is going forward.


No real inside perspective to share. IMBA did respond to our renegotiation offer that we were ahead of them and would more than likely have to wait as they were focused on coming to resolution on the chapter program. We're moving forward with that reality but did sent them a detailed proposal with ideas on how we could work together without being a chapter the same day they responded.

The "right thing" moving forward is individual chapter dependent.


----------



## trailmap (Jan 11, 2005)

Our regional director told me Tuesday that the 2.0 plan was dead and things are more or less going to go back to something similar to the the 1.0 model. Maybe a slight dues increase, but definitely not $49.

Yeah, they should get something out (besides the e-mail that the insurance program wasn't going to work), but then again I can see the problem with getting too many e-mails out before the next revision is settled.


----------



## tyriverag (Jan 22, 2014)

Just talked to our Regional Director on Monday and the dues increase is off - should stay at $35, not $50. Looking at some other things that will be decided in 30-60 days. Our club (CORBA in Eau Claire, WI), voted to wait until the changes are published before deciding/voting again. 

Two of the main things for us:

1. Trail Care Days/"subject matter experts" - continuing to receive these benefits, that benefit pretty directly our membership.

2. Getting a new membership admin system. Doesn't seem to be a lot of love for an error-prone registration engine.

Either way, we are trying to take a longer view of how things might shake out, we're lucky to have a diverse range of board members that have seem similar things play out with similar orgs for other outdoor sports/activities.


----------



## tim208 (Apr 23, 2010)

could it be that mountain biking has evolved beyond what any one group can do?

ie, when I first started mountain biking, the mountains where the only place to ride mountain bikes(late 80's), now major metropolitian cities have bike trails. There is no way one organization represent rural riders as well as urban riders. We actually do need more than one major mountain bike organization. 

I was a member of imba from the mid 90's to the mid 2000's. I resigned out of the group when I saw in the imba newsletter that imba and the sierra club went and lobbied congress together. that was in the imba newsletter. I did leave right after that. I was pissed that this organization was working with the enemy(sierra club). The wilderness issue is not new and has been going on for a very long time. So long story short, this sport has evolved beyond what any one organization can do. there is just to many different facets to the sport now. (think of all the different classifications of mountain bikes now. not to long ago, there was only one style of mountain bike. fully rigid)

personally if imba helps you stay with it, if imba does not help you move on.


----------



## muddy horseshoes (Dec 18, 2005)

*member management system*



tyriverag said:


> Just talked to our Regional Director on Monday and the dues increase is off - should stay at $35, not $50. Looking at some other things that will be decided in 30-60 days. Our club (CORBA in Eau Claire, WI), voted to wait until the changes are published before deciding/voting again.
> 
> Two of the main things for us:
> 
> ...


Our club in STL uses the civicrm platform and we are not a chapter club, though we consider ourselves an affiliate and have had the IMBA folks out (10+ years ago) pre-chapter program when they seemed more accessible.

They are so in love with the walmart money and NW Arkansas that we aren't on their radar any more and don't seem interested unless we sign some chapter papers.

the gorctrails.com website heavily uses civicrm (same software as IMBA) but we've had good luck with it and have a pretty awesome developer (sprydigital.com) that has fixed some glitches over the years for us.

Civicrm is used to manage our trail builds (events), register particpants, send out scheduled email reminders and automate the membership process. It's been a boon for us and we've seen a steady increase in membership with the automation side of things.

Having already developed our site (and modeling off of IMBA using civicrm) we didn't have a compelling reason to hand over membership dues for the tech side of things - we pretty much have that covered.


----------



## tyriverag (Jan 22, 2014)

Just read this article.

You mind find it interesting if you haven't read it yet.


----------



## life behind bars (May 24, 2014)

They may as well call themselves the Arkansas Mountain Biking Association because that's about the only presence they're going to have.


----------



## Gigantic (Aug 31, 2012)

trailmap said:


> A couple of responses to Gigantic:
> 
> .
> 
> ...


missed this back in Feb... Here in philly, we have 3, and I use the term loosely, cycling oriented friends groups that are tasked with building and maintaining 3 networks of multi user trails in 2 parks in the city: Friends of the Cresheim Trails has build about 4 miles of trails in the Cresheim Valley that separates the neighborhoods of Chestnut Hill and Mt. Airy, Belmont Plateau Trails Alliance oversees development and upkeep of about 15 miles of trails in West Fairmount Park and Philly Pumptrack is responsible for the eponymous track and 2-1/2 miles of flow trail that connects the pumptrack to the more technical trails at the plateau. they're "cycling oriented" in that the principals of each friends group are cyclists and the trails, while being multi-user in function, are built with mountain bikers in mind. This contrasts with the two other parks in the city and their respective friends groups, Wissahickon (FOW), who tend to build their trails with hikers in mind, first and foremost, and Pennypack Park, whose friends group is generally disorganized and ineffective and the trails are haphazardly maintained by a small contingent of rogue trail builders, with little dialog between Philly Parks and Rec and the friends group.

Penny pack is out on their own, but the other parks share a core group of about 8-20 volunteers who show up to work days to build and repair the trails. FOW, with an enormous membership, a generous endowment and full time staff, is the dominant group in the city and generously loans the other friends groups the use of their trail building equipment and machinery for larger projects. The other three groups have worked hard to build relationships with the city and parks department and our advocacy without IMBA assistance, has been effective enough that the city is now willing to invest in new, professionally built trails, in addition to our networks of volunteer built trails. We've also been able to repair the damage caused by the last IMBA chapter in the city, that dissolved in a storm of bro-behavior, broken promises and rogue trail building and forge a healthy relationship with the FoW and get more input and consideration in their 75 mile network of trails in the Wissahickon Valley. The one thing we lack, apart from the dozen or so mountain biking trail builders who show up to trail days, is broader representation from the MTB community at large. To that end, I launched the Philadelphia Mountainbike Trails Coalition, to serve as a clearing house for trail building opportunities and outreach, as well as better coordinate between the friends groups, parks and rec land managers and the broader community. We've currently got a list nearly 100 volunteers and have built about 3 miles of new singletrack since last October and are about to launch an ambitious project in the Wissahickon with another 2-1/2 miles of trail, if not more, that will marshall our volunteers and the talents of pro trail builders Val Naylor and Steve Thomas.

IMBA chapter status would only add another uncessesary layer of bureaucracy and add more work to a crew that is already stretched thin. Membership? honestly, I don't see the need. Insurance? That's covered in part by the city, in part by the friends groups. as far as money goes, I'd rather that it go straight to the friends groups than see half of it drained to Colorado for who knows what. I fail to see what benefit IMBA chapterhood would bring to the table for us and our city.


----------



## tyriverag (Jan 22, 2014)

I agree for the most part, Gigantic. 

However, we do believe there is a benefit to being an IMBA chapter, in having a national/global "association" behind us. Quantifiable? Not at all. But with the great relationships we've build with our partners, being a chapter does seem less necessary. Should note that we have benefited from their Trail Care Crew, though that is now on hiatus.

I would like to see improvements in the CRM; there would be value there for us for sure.

One thing that has been huge for us (and not related to IMBA at all) is focusing on engaging other user groups (trail runners, hikers, kids, families, non-racers/rec riders, etc.). Our singletrack trails are generally built as multi-use trails and much of our membership base (and board) use the trails in various ways. This helps to grow the volunteer base and also working with (and gaining) local sponsors. I should note that we are lucky to live in a genuinely great community (Eau Claire, WI).


----------



## SuperStang (Nov 19, 2014)

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Gigantic again.


----------



## bitflogger (Jan 12, 2004)

Switchblade2 said:


> I have been notified by the local IMBA representative that new membership is doing very well. So they are obviously doing well despite what some people think. I was under the impression that membership was declining and creating financial pressure on the organization. I seem to be very wrong on that assumption.
> 
> Our local Chapter opted out this year and a different Chapter I belonged to was terminated by the IMBA rep, so I personally don't see much benefit from IMBA in the local area I live in.
> 
> I am assuming certain locals benefit from IMBA services more than others. I did attend several Trail Crew classes and found them important in my trail building and maintenance efforts.


Our chapter membership continues to grow, and I look forward to learning more about changes to the trail fund program that are supposed to be better for chapters overall.


----------



## tyriverag (Jan 22, 2014)

bitflogger said:


> Our chapter membership continues to grow, and I look forward to learning more about changes to the trail fund program that are supposed to be better for chapters overall.


Ours does too. The problem we see is the 50-60% revenue share for not a lot of value in return. Apparently there are quite a few (former) chapters that agree. That said, it would be nice to stick with IMBA as they right their ship, and we both come out better for it, just not at the current cost.


----------

