These communications are presented in chronological order.

From James Claus

With all due respect to the other opinions expressed, I do not object in the least to Kristen's email. This is the single best forum in Gainesville for bike-related issues, and certainly the topics that Kristen has written about are cycling-related. While I would not like to see the list overrun with "flame wars" on political topics, elections don't happen that often.

I, for one, am happy to read any email on bike-related issues that rises to the level of a "letter to the editor". While Kristen's email is intended to be persuasive, it is also informative, I am confident in my ability to separate fact from opinion and draw my own conclusion. If someone else wishes to write a cycling-focused "letter to the editor" on why I should vote for someone other than Cornell / Harvey, I'd be happy to read that, too.

From Ship Mallard

Having just moved to Gainesville this month and joining gcc last week the emails in question helped me understand what is going on. I think what set some people off was pointing out the political party the people we need to vote for belonged to.

Just my two cents worth.

Thank you,

From Cathy Bester

I think the GCC should not become a political sounding board since I am sure there is a diversity of political views from the membership and this is not the forum for such banter. I actually dropped my membership for a while based on this as I find it very annoying.  There is enough political news elsewhere...   and I don't appreciate derogatory comments made about other view points and political parties from (a) certain individuals primarily JT. If people want to discuss cycling politics, perhaps another group or fb page should be created? 

From Ed Gardner

I support the publishing of factual INFORMATION about the various political candidate’s positions with respect to bicycling infrastructure.  How the word gets out, whether on the mail list, in the Newsletter, or at some Facebook page is not important to me.  I just want to know who supports the cycling infrastructure, and who would not.  GCC is my only source for this kind of information; without it, I don’t know who I want to vote for to support cycling issues.

I am NOT interested in opinionated discussions about candidates, or meta-discussions about discussions, or criticisms of the people who voluntarily invest the time and effort to get this kind of information collected and dispensed to us.

Whether the club ITSELF should endorse particular politicians, given its tax-exempt status, is a question I defer to the board and its legal advisor.

From Tim Hayes

I believe the GCC has a vested interest in informing their membership of the positions of various candidates and their stated goals on issues pertaining to cycling in our community.

From Jorge Milanes

I completely agree with Kristen Young's last email to the listserve. I cannot imagine how anyone who is a member of a bicycling club would object to advocacy of that very pursuit. Those who objected to the original email did not offer a single iota of reasoning, factual or otherwise, as to the reason why it was objectionable. It is really not such a complex issue. There are public voting records that clearly indicate the positive or negative impact of a particular commissioner's    position on the pursuit of safe bicycling in our community. At that time it is incumbent on those in an advocacy position (which I believe should remain as is) to inform the membership of those facts. If there are individuals in the membership that for purely political reasons choose to vote against their interest as bicyclists, that is certainly their prerogative. The Gainesville Cycling Club however, needs to act as an organization that supports policies that serve the interests of all bicyclists, and endorsing candidates for office that do just that seems to be the obvious and clear choice.

From Stephen Perz

Greetings all,

In light of this afternoon's little firestorm over tomorrow's election, I would like to weigh in as a GCC member re: advocacy per instructions below.

I want to make three observations beyond what I've seen in correspondence so far. Apologies if this turns out to be repetition, that's not my intent.

1. I support the sort of e-mail from Kristin today. The point was to advocate for candidates perceived as favorable to cycling. This to me seems appropriate for a cycling club that presumably is interested in advancing cycling. People may disagree about the candidates or not be registered Democrats. I also take the point about advocating for particular candidates that some people may not like. In all of these cases, people can delete if they don't want to read or if they don't agree.

2. I'm not entirely clear on what counts as a "discussion" per the rights of use for the listserv. I agree that respondents to an e-mail copying the entire club does get tiresome, but see item 1 above. But it seems the initial e-mail was meant as a broadcast to the club, and much of those that followed were directed at the initial sender, so it seems to me the initial e-mail would be appropriate for the listserv but not the others. This may not be what the terms actually say. I agree we should follow the actual terms of use, though it might be useful to clarify how they apply in this case.

3. For my part, I would not want to see the position of advocacy director disappear from the GCC. Advocacy is an integral part of the role of a cycling club in any community, as cycling clubs are key stakeholders in local transportation planning. The LAB and FBA certainly endorse this position, whether in their evaluations of communities for cycling designations (silver, gold, etc.) or in the agendas of their annual meetings. Both also recognize the diversity in "bike tribes" out there, and few cyclists are advocates. I fail to see how excluding one group of cyclists, in this case GCC advocacy people, benefits cycling in Gainesville. Cyclists are diverse, not just in terms of their machines, and we have to live with the others. If we disagree, we should say why, but not try to drop the advocacy position on the board or pursue similar exclusionary measures.

Thank you.

Stephen Perz

GCC member since 1998

LCI #864

From Chris Borgert

Rob Robbins has asked for our thoughts on GCC Advocacy efforts, so I’m posting mine.

The notion that all cyclists benefit profoundly from GCC Advocacy efforts is not well substantiated and quite contrary to my own experience.  On the contrary, I’ve found it to engender contempt for cyclists and a disregard for our welfare on the roads.

More than a few of my non-cyclist friends, neighbors, and acquaintances have the impression that cyclists are a homogenous lot of left-leaning politicos who would like to restrict road use to bicycles and publicly-funded transportation (buses).  The loud voices of a few, pretending to represent the entire club, make it difficult to correct that impression and to reassure non-cycling motorists that most cyclists simply want to ride safely and stay out of motorists' way, but have no desire to dictate how others commute or use the roadways or to dictate how public funds are spent.  Billing political advocacy as a representation of the entire GCC is not only false and misleading, it makes correcting inaccurate impressions about all cyclists a tough sell.

Recently, extreme and sometimes confrontational wording of GCC advocacy has alienated some motorists and led them to view cyclists as a public nuisance, moreso for what they perceive us to think about motorists and how the roads should be used than for an underlying objection to our presence on the roadways.  I know at least one law enforcement officer who has gained that impression based on GCC political advocacy.  Make no mistake; these impressions are NOT a benefit to GCC or to cyclists in general.

Concern for cyclists' safety is not a priority for motorists who think cyclists are their enemies.  Any potential benefits of GCC political advocacy should be weighed against the negative consequences of engendering an unfriendly, even hostile motoring public.  

Personally, I think the GCC advocacy position should seek to promote and advertise all the positive things GCC does for the community and to promote public safety for all who use the roads rather than to argue a particular viewpoint concerning political candidates and use of public funds for roadways and their design.

Unfortunately, the assertion that GCC’s recent political activities comply with restrictions for tax exempt organizations can only be validated by a legal challenge in which GCC prevails.  I can see little benefit to the club or to cycling in general from such a challenge, regardless of how it might ultimately be decided.

From Rob Robins

Hi Stephen,

Thank you for your comments. You have always been eloquent and reasoned in your commentary about cycling. I always relish your letters to the editor and I'm glad you wrote the board with a summary of today's discussion to date, which indeed, hits on the 3 major themes of the day. Well done as always.

Item 1 is fair to a point, but I disagree with respect to your assessment of the reaction of the factions of our membership whose candidates or party of choice are not endorsed. Yes, one can simply delete e-mails they find unwelcome, but I think it reasonable to assume that most folks joined our club to support and engage in cycling -- not to be told their political views are discounted and their dues support a board with a political agenda that is not their own. This is both confusing ("I thought GCC was about biking?") and off-putting.

For many of our members, cycling and politics have little or nothing to do with one another.

So no, I don't agree that the GCC should be endorsing candidates (You'll note the GCC Board did not endorse any candidates in the current primary election). I and perhaps others, would prefer that Mr. Thompson, who is a member of the GCAT, feel free to conduct his political activities (which are less and less in line with the views of the board) via that agency. Those who do see an intersection between politics and cycling can join GCAT in addition to, or in lieu of the GCC.

Put another way, no GCAT member joins with the expectation of a GCAT century or a 15% GCAT discount in bike stores anymore than a GCC member signs up to get involved in politics.

Point 3 addresses my proposal to suspend the activities of the GCC advocacy director via a majority vote of the board (the same way it was created) and to develop more specific guidelines as to what the membership can expect from this office before reinstating it.

I apologize that this was released inadvertently and without full explanation today. To be clear, the coalition of board members supporting this motion do not intend to do away with issue-based advocacy, but rather only to limit and refine it into something more acceptable to the general membership, who again, joined a bike riding organization and not a political action committee.  

So, to sum, I too wish to see the GCC advocate for cycling-based issues, but within clearer, more limited guidelines. And to be blunt, I'm firmly of the opinion that we need a more reasoned spokesperson than Mr. Thompson, who has denied my many entreaties and those of others, to tone down his rhetoric. I intend to pursue both of these goals vigorously.